• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Further Restrictions Announced by Johnson (22/09)

Status
Not open for further replies.

sharpinf

Member
Joined
1 Sep 2014
Messages
159
As for 'working at home' as this becomes your place of employment, possibly for some time! if you are a smoker, are you prohibited from smoking, as it is your office ? :) :)

Hammersmith and Fulham Council are way ahead of you on this :D

Council ‘bans’ staff from smoking at their desks at home

Council ‘bans’ staff from smoking at their desks at home
21 September 2020, 06:19

Workers were effectively banned from smoking in their home offices
By Asher McShane
A council effectively banned workers from smoking at their desks while working from home after it failed to cancel a no smoking policy.

Health and safety guidance was issued in 2015 to Hammersmith and Fulham council workers that stated: "any part of a private dwelling used solely for work purposes will be required to be smoke-free".


The guidance was issued jointly with Royal Kensington and Chelsea but they dropped it in February this year.

The advice is still in force and applies to Hammersmith and Fulham council workers who are working from home, however the Telegraph reported that the guidance is “being replaced.”

No-one has been disciplined for breaking the rule, it was reported.


The issue was highlighted in a report, titled: "Smokefree Ideology - How local authorities are waging war on choice and personal freedom”

Josie Appleton, the report's author, said: “"It would be better if councils focused on providing public services, rather than interfering in the lifestyle choices of their employees and residents."

Cllr Ian Hudspeth, Chairman of the Local Government Association’s Community Well-being Board, said councils were being “responsible employers.”

He said: “Smoking is still the leading cause of preventable death. Reducing smoking rates is the single biggest thing we can do to improve the nation’s health.


"As responsible employers and public health leaders, councils make no apology for leading by example and looking to protect the health of their employees and the wider public.”
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

brad465

Established Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
6,969
Location
Taunton or Kent
It's all a smokescreen to steer us away from the change in the Brexit agreement, that Mr J has now admitted will lead to 2 day queues at Dover, and 7,000 lorries stacked
The Government are definitely using one of Covid or Brexit to act as a dead cat for the other, possibly even mutually. The rule of 6 was announced 5 days before coming into force, and just as the Internal Market bill was being presented to break international law.
 

Smidster

Member
Joined
23 Oct 2014
Messages
561
Even if you don't trust YouGov I think it is clear that the public are generally hawkish when it comes to restrictions - Which isn't a shock

Here is a poll from Ipsos (who do lots of good stuff on perception) on different options to prevent a second wave - https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default...-coronavirus-polling-charts_220920_public.pdf

There was net support for every measure with the exception of closing schools and almost 70% supporting banning all foreign travel.
 

DelayRepay

Established Member
Joined
21 May 2011
Messages
2,929
Hammersmith and Fulham Council are way ahead of you on this :D

Council ‘bans’ staff from smoking at their desks at home

I don't think the council have banned smoking at home. Their Policy says: 'any part of a private dwelling used solely for work purposes will be required to be smoke-free.' If you're working in a spare room, it's not used solely for work purposes. If you claim it is, I believe there are some kind of tax or planning permission implications.

In practice, my work room is mainly used for work, but it's also used to store the ironing board so it's not being used solely for work purposes.

Media getting carried away again!
 

thejuggler

Member
Joined
8 Jan 2016
Messages
1,186
When you read a headline the presence of quote marks around a word - 'bans' - is a very good sign that the story which follows says the exact opposite.
 

philosopher

Established Member
Joined
23 Sep 2015
Messages
1,346
Even if you don't trust YouGov I think it is clear that the public are generally hawkish when it comes to restrictions - Which isn't a shock

Here is a poll from Ipsos (who do lots of good stuff on perception) on different options to prevent a second wave - https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default...-coronavirus-polling-charts_220920_public.pdf

There was net support for every measure with the exception of closing schools and almost 70% supporting banning all foreign travel.

With these polls, I do agree that most people support restrictions, however I do wonder if they are overstating support. If you read the comments on news website, there are quite a few people who are opposed to greater restrictions and it does seem to be more even split than the polls suggest. This is the case even on sites like the Guardian.

With the polls I do wonder if a lot of people are relucant to say they are against the restrictions as they not want to be seen as being immoral. Perhaps there is something similar to the ‘Shy Tory‘ factor in these polls.
 

NorthOxonian

Established Member
Associate Staff
Buses & Coaches
Joined
5 Jul 2018
Messages
1,483
Location
Oxford/Newcastle
With these polls, I do agree that most people support restrictions, however I do wonder if they are overstating support. If you read the comments on news website, there are quite a few people who are opposed to greater restrictions and it does seem to be more even split than the polls suggest. This is the case even on sites like the Guardian.

With the polls I do wonder if a lot of people are relucant to say they are against the restrictions as they not want to be seen as being immoral. Perhaps there is something similar to the ‘Shy Tory‘ factor in these polls.

I spent a fair amount of time yesterday looking at forums for supporters of various football clubs. While they may not be representative of the general public, I found 11 had a fairly clear consensus in favour of the government's approach, 8 were clearly against it (like this forum), and 12 were either split evenly or neutral. There was a slight geographical bias (generally, the further south you go, the less the restrictions are supported), but it was hardly clear. In many cases one set of fans would love the measures while their local rivals hated them, or vice versa - for example Plymouth and Exeter respectively.

The limitations are that football fans are not entirely representative of the country (and in my experience men are less likely to support the restrictions than women). But I think it gives a very broad idea of what the actual picture is, that polls might not be picking up.
 

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
9,669
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
With these polls, I do agree that most people support restrictions, however I do wonder if they are overstating support. If you read the comments on news website, there are quite a few people who are opposed to greater restrictions and it does seem to be more even split than the polls suggest. This is the case even on sites like the Guardian.

With the polls I do wonder if a lot of people are relucant to say they are against the restrictions as they not want to be seen as being immoral. Perhaps there is something similar to the ‘Shy Tory‘ factor in these polls.

Well interestingly from the same site is this running poll:


This graph shows that in back during the early months of the pandemic, up to 75% were of the view that health was by the most important issue facing the country, but as the end of furlough has approached this has fallen to 55% whilst the economy has gone from a low of about 25% up to around 53%. I think this is a truer representation of public opinion, as measures have started to impact on individuals so attitudes start to shift. This certainly seems to have been the case in my social circles, more recently in sections of the media, and even to an extent on here.
 

DB

Guest
Joined
18 Nov 2009
Messages
5,036
The Government are definitely using one of Covid or Brexit to act as a dead cat for the other, possibly even mutually. The rule of 6 was announced 5 days before coming into force, and just as the Internal Market bill was being presented to break international law.

Covid as an excuse for the Brexit shambles seems most likely, as it's easier for the politicians to deny responsibility for this.
 

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
17,685
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
With these polls, I do agree that most people support restrictions, however I do wonder if they are overstating support. If you read the comments on news website, there are quite a few people who are opposed to greater restrictions and it does seem to be more even split than the polls suggest. This is the case even on sites like the Guardian.

With the polls I do wonder if a lot of people are relucant to say they are against the restrictions as they not want to be seen as being immoral. Perhaps there is something similar to the ‘Shy Tory‘ factor in these polls.

I definitely pick up a sense that people like the idea of restrictions that affect *others*, which goes with the idea that everyone else is some kind of walking bio-hazard.
 

MikeWM

Established Member
Joined
26 Mar 2010
Messages
4,382
Location
Ely
Guess we'll have to wait and see what the law says then, which no doubt will appear around 11pm tonight.

I was being optimistic - it appeared on the stroke of midnight :-/

However, happily it looks like Dowden was correct. Cinemas/theaters/concerts have to *start* performances before 10pm, but there an explicit exception that they are allowed to continue beyond.
 

Class 33

Established Member
Joined
14 Aug 2009
Messages
2,362
OK, there's some conflicting comments this week from Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak, regarding how long these restrictions could or will last!

Boris said in his "address to the nation" on Tuesday night said these restrictions "may last for 6 months.".

Yet Rishi in his statement in the House of Commons just now said "These restrictions are going to be in place for AT LEAST the next 6 months. We have to get used to the new normal."!!!!

So which is correct??!! I did think that these restrictions could well UNFORTUNATELY last yet another 6 months. But after that 6 months is up, they really will have to FINALLY scrap those restrictions so the economy and people of the UK can get back to normal again, albeit having to still live with this blasted virus. We just can't go on with this madness for well over a year!!! But after hearing Rishi's statement just now, it appears these restrictions could well drag on into next summer and beyond!!! This country is going to be in a right mess if all this drags on into well into 2021 and possibly beyond!
 

Huntergreed

Established Member
Associate Staff
Events Co-ordinator
Joined
16 Jan 2016
Messages
3,019
Location
Dumfries
OK, there's some conflicting comments this week from Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak, regarding how long these restrictions could or will last!

Boris said in his "address to the nation" on Tuesday night said these restrictions "may last for 6 months.".

Yet Rishi in his statement in the House of Commons just now said "These restrictions are going to be in place for AT LEAST the next 6 months. We have to get used to the new normal."!!!!

So which is correct??!! I did think that these restrictions could well UNFORTUNATELY last yet another 6 months. But after that 6 months is up, they really will have to lift those restrictions so the economy and people of the UK can get back to normal again, albeit having to still live with this blasted virus. But after hearing Rishi's statement just now, it appears these restrictions could well drag on into next summer and beyond!!! This country is going to be in a right mess if all this drags on into well into 2021 and possibly beyond!
Whilst I completely disagree with it, I think it's probably going to be the case that the restrictions will indeed last another 6 months in their current form (or a similar form). I imagine at that point it's going to be either:

(1) We have a vaccine and we can start to lift restrictions

OR

(2) We do not have a vaccine and can't spend all this money waiting on it, we need to pursue a herd immunity strategy, as otherwise we'll never be able to get out of this.
 

TheGrandWazoo

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Feb 2013
Messages
19,969
Location
Somerset with international travel (e.g. across th
I definitely pick up a sense that people like the idea of restrictions that affect *others*, which goes with the idea that everyone else is some kind of walking bio-hazard.
Isn’t that just obvious? Wouldn’t most people surveyed go for measures that don’t disadvantage them?

FWIW, some people seem to be comparing the views on this forum (vs the wider populace) and questioning the veracity of nationwide polling and the views on greater restrictions.

I’m surprised people are surprised. This is a forum for people who, I’d wager, more inclined to travel and so feel the restrictions more than most. I don’t know what the age demographic is but is it younger than the average so fewer people with age related conditions or having elderly relatives? Are there also a greater percentage of people who, with particular conditions associated with the autistic spectrum, find the restrictions with Covid more challenging than others?

None of that is intended to offend or be judgemental; just possible explanations why some feel that their experience or the views of this forum differ from the wider population.

In that respect, it seems to echo the Brexit arguments.
 

thejuggler

Member
Joined
8 Jan 2016
Messages
1,186
Whilst I completely disagree with it, I think it's probably going to be the case that the restrictions will indeed last another 6 months in their current form (or a similar form). I imagine at that point it's going to be either:

(1) We have a vaccine and we can start to lift restrictions

OR

(2) We do not have a vaccine and can't spend all this money waiting on it, we need to pursue a herd immunity strategy, as otherwise we'll never be able to get out of this.

Please explain how you think herd immunity works, because unfortunately it can't work without a vaccine.

If it did we work without a vaccine we wouldn't have common cold, flu, chicken pox, HIV and any other number of diseases circulating the population.

If we don't have a vaccine the option is a fully functioning test, track, trace isolate system.

This can be backed up by the Chancellor to encourage testing by increasing SSP to actual wage level for anyone employed who gets a positive test and has to self isolate, rather than fining people who get a positive test and don't because they can't afford to have time off.
 

trebor79

Established Member
Joined
8 Mar 2018
Messages
4,435
Please explain how you think herd immunity works, because unfortunately it can't work without a vaccine.

If it did we work without a vaccine we wouldn't have common cold, flu, chicken pox, HIV and any other number of diseases circulating the population.
This is absolute, complete and utter nonsense.
There are flu vaccines. The reason we can't eradicate flue is because there are many different strains, and they all see very rapid antigenic drift and antigenic shift. What this means is that the vaccine (or acquired immunity from infection) is not necessarily effective the next time you encounter the virus, because the "new" virus needs to be "learned" by the immune system all over again.
Same for common cold.

Covid19 appears to be relatively stable in terms of its genetics, so there is some reason to hope that a vaccine might be effective.

Herd immunity absolutely works without a vaccine. All those "childhood diseases" like measles, mumps, chicken pox infer immunity for life. So if an unvaccinated, not previously infected person comes into out midst they are very unlikely to encounter the disease because there are so few hosts in the community.
This isn't the case for diseases like flu which rapidly change their genetic make-up. So we all have to accept that we run the risk of catching it, and do sensible things like wash our hands and avoid obviously ill people.
If covid is stable, then if enough people have immunity the "herd" will be immune due to lack of hosts. It doesn't matter whether that immunity is conferred naturally through contact with the virus or via a vaccine.
I suggest you do some reading on diseases, vaccines and how they work. It's fascinating and you will learn why it isn't simple (or even possible) to create vaccines for everything.
 

BJames

Established Member
Joined
27 Jan 2018
Messages
1,359
Please explain how you think herd immunity works, because unfortunately it can't work without a vaccine.

If it did we work without a vaccine we wouldn't have common cold, flu, chicken pox, HIV and any other number of diseases circulating the population.

If we don't have a vaccine the option is a fully functioning test, track, trace isolate system.

This can be backed up by the Chancellor to encourage testing by increasing SSP to actual wage level for anyone employed who gets a positive test and has to self isolate, rather than fining people who get a positive test and don't because they can't afford to have time off.
Not quite, herd immunity can work without a vaccine but it requires a similar percentage of people to be infected with Covid-19, thus generating antibodies. The reason we still have colds and flu etc is because there are repeated mutations in the strains which prevents people gaining protection from it. As it stands at the moment, the virus is mutating slowly (and interestingly, according to this article, possibly to get around our own mitigations) and this is good news for both a vaccine and for herd immunity the natural way. But if, as that article suggests, it is simply mutating to become considerably more contagious, then I agree that we need a fully functioning track and trace and I would suggest that this would need to be elevated nearer to Johnson's "moonshot" plan region in order to be effective.

On the without a vaccine point, don't forget we have flu vaccines, but we still have flu! So it's not exactly worked there either. Why? Because it continues to mutate and we have no choice but to "predict" which strain of flu will be the most dominant this winter.

I am however in complete agreement that this fixation on fines needs to be preceded first by the correct level of support - I think the government would find a much higher level of compliance with self isolation if people weren't losing two weeks of pay to comply.

This is absolute, complete and utter nonsense.
There are flu vaccines. The reason we can't eradicate flue is because there are many different strains, and they all see very rapid antigenic drift and antigenic shift. What this means is that the vaccine (or acquired immunity from infection) is not necessarily effective the next time you encounter the virus, because the "new" virus needs to be "learned" by the immune system all over again.
Same for common cold.

Covid19 appears to be relatively stable in terms of its genetics, so there is some reason to hope that a vaccine might be effective.

Herd immunity absolutely works without a vaccine. All those "childhood diseases" like measles, mumps, chicken pox infer immunity for life. So if an unvaccinated, not previously infected person comes into out midst they are very unlikely to encounter the disease because there are so few hosts in the community.
This isn't the case for diseases like flu which rapidly change their genetic make-up. So we all have to accept that we run the risk of catching it, and do sensible things like wash our hands and avoid obviously ill people.

I suggest you do some reading on diseases, vaccines and how they work. It's fascinating and you will learn why it isn't simple (or even possible) to create vaccines for everything.
Edit to add: thanks for this. I completely agree.
 

DB

Guest
Joined
18 Nov 2009
Messages
5,036
Please explain how you think herd immunity works, because unfortunately it can't work without a vaccine.

You don't seem to understand herd immunity - it's a situation where a sufficient proportion of the population has immunity, meaning that spread is kept to a low level. It's not a situation where the virus concerned disappears completely. That immunity can come from either previous exposure to the virus (or a closely relaed one), or from a vaccine, or a mixture of both. It can and does work without a vaccine - that's why the strain of flu that killed large numbers in 1918 doesn't kill large numbers now and hasn't for many years (since before any flu vaccines), although it's still out there circulating. Basically, vaccines cause herd immunity, so if the concept of herd immunity was invalid they wouldn't work.

None of the examples you give demonstrate your point - there are a number of cold and flu viruses, and they mutate regularly meaning that herd immunity is of limited scope as it doesn't protect against all mutations (this is why the flu vaccine changes every year, and varies in effectiveness). There is herd immunity to chicken pox, which is why that remains at a low level relative to population.

HIV is completely irrelevant as it's not the same type of thing at all (it causes a lifelong condition, not an acute one from which sufferers fully recover). Those infected will have it until they die, so the concept of herd immunity doesn't apply in the same sense because nobody 'recovers' from it (although the syptoms can be treated fairly effectively now). This is no doubt why it has proved to hard to vaccinate against it, despite the vast sums spent on it - naturally occurring herd immunity cannot occur because that requires a resaonable 'revovery' rate: viruses where this applies are relatively rare though, fortunately.
 
Last edited:

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
17,685
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
Isn’t that just obvious? Wouldn’t most people surveyed go for measures that don’t disadvantage them?

FWIW, some people seem to be comparing the views on this forum (vs the wider populace) and questioning the veracity of nationwide polling and the views on greater restrictions.

I’m surprised people are surprised. This is a forum for people who, I’d wager, more inclined to travel and so feel the restrictions more than most. I don’t know what the age demographic is but is it younger than the average so fewer people with age related conditions or having elderly relatives? Are there also a greater percentage of people who, with particular conditions associated with the autistic spectrum, find the restrictions with Covid more challenging than others?

None of that is intended to offend or be judgemental; just possible explanations why some feel that their experience or the views of this forum differ from the wider population.

In that respect, it seems to echo the Brexit arguments.

I wouldn’t really know if any of the above is true or not, however I would say there’s an element that people in here take the trouble to analyse things in greater detail than the population in general. There’s certainly been plenty of sources quoted, and I must say from having read many of the arguments on here I have found myself being persuaded. By comparison my local Facebook is bordering on hysterical.

There’s also an element that we have now had this going on long enough to draw conclusions from reality - and that is that it is very clearly turning out to not be anything like as bad as initially feared. That real-life experience will of course inform views.

I would also wager that many on here have been at work through some or all of this. I know people who were literally walled up in their houses, but upon returning to work within a week or two quickly started to relax. People walling themselves up in terror hasn’t really been conducive to people making rational judgements, especially with the constant diet of news coverage, which certainly is more oriented towards the fearful end of the spectrum.
 

trebor79

Established Member
Joined
8 Mar 2018
Messages
4,435
If we don't have a vaccine the option is a fully functioning test, track, trace isolate system.

This can be backed up by the Chancellor to encourage testing by increasing SSP to actual wage level for anyone employed who gets a positive test and has to self isolate, rather than fining people who get a positive test and don't because they can't afford to have time off.
I would suggest if there is no vaccine we simply live with it. Increasing SSP to fill wage for something that perhaps only half of those testing positive for actually have (due to false positives) will simply put businesses out of business.
Long term non of these mitigations and ideas for mitigations are sustainable.
 

duncanp

Established Member
Joined
16 Aug 2012
Messages
4,856
OK, there's some conflicting comments this week from Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak, regarding how long these restrictions could or will last!

Boris said in his "address to the nation" on Tuesday night said these restrictions "may last for 6 months.".

Yet Rishi in his statement in the House of Commons just now said "These restrictions are going to be in place for AT LEAST the next 6 months. We have to get used to the new normal."!!!!

So which is correct??!! I did think that these restrictions could well UNFORTUNATELY last yet another 6 months. But after that 6 months is up, they really will have to FINALLY scrap those restrictions so the economy and people of the UK can get back to normal again, albeit having to still live with this blasted virus. We just can't go on with this madness for well over a year!!! But after hearing Rishi's statement just now, it appears these restrictions could well drag on into next summer and beyond!!! This country is going to be in a right mess if all this drags on into well into 2021 and possibly beyond!

I can't help thinking that the restrictions may be relaxed later this year, perhaps just before Christmas, whatever the government says now. Depending on whether numbers stabilise you may see something like:-

  • At the end of October, pub closing time extended to 11pm and the rule of 6 changed to the rule of 8.
  • At the end of November, pub closing time extended to midnight, the rule of 8 changed to the rule of 10 and people allowed to meet other households in private home and gardens.
Nobody can predict the future of course, but it would be a very brave government that kept these restrictions in their current form over Christmas, or even worse tightened them because of a spike in numbers.
 

takno

Established Member
Joined
9 Jul 2016
Messages
5,038
Please explain how you think herd immunity works, because unfortunately it can't work without a vaccine.

If it did we work without a vaccine we wouldn't have common cold, flu, chicken pox, HIV and any other number of diseases circulating the population.

If we don't have a vaccine the option is a fully functioning test, track, trace isolate system.

This can be backed up by the Chancellor to encourage testing by increasing SSP to actual wage level for anyone employed who gets a positive test and has to self isolate, rather than fining people who get a positive test and don't because they can't afford to have time off.
Your repeating this every single time you hear the phrase herd immunity doesn't make it any more true. I think the mistake you are making is to assume that herd immunity somehow means the disease being eliminated altogether. It doesn't - it's an end state where the disease doesn't spread very quickly, outbreaks are relatively easy to control and shield from, and the consequences to the health service become entirely manageable.

Naturally acquired herd immunity can and does work perfectly well to suppress a whole range of viruses to a manageable level. How well it works depends on the characteristics of the virus in question. You really need a virus which spreads easily over a wide population, and is for the most part non fatal (but is fatal enough to bother monitoring), and ideally has a reasonably long level of immunity. Coronavirus is a pretty good fit in this respect.

Measles and chicken pox pre-vaccination were a less good fit because they spread less easily. Even then though, we were saved from much worse consequences because people tended to get the diseases at an age where they were able to cope with them, and more vulnerable people were safe in everyday life because the vast majority of people were unable to spread the disease to them.

HIV is an example of a disease that isn't well-suited to naturally acquired herd immunity at all - it's comparatively difficult to catch, and whilst the death rate is now low with treatment it's still vanishingly rare to actually eliminate the disease.

In short, Coronavirus is not HIV, and naturally acquired herd immunity is not only possible, but is still the most likely route to exit from this for most people on the planet
 

DB

Guest
Joined
18 Nov 2009
Messages
5,036
Yet Rishi in his statement in the House of Commons just now said "These restrictions are going to be in place for AT LEAST the next 6 months. We have to get used to the new normal."!!!!

So in August he's enouraging people to flock to pubs and restaurants, and in September he's advocating long-term restrictions on pubs and restaurants. Typical government flip-flopping.

Anyone still think he would make a good leader?
 

Huntergreed

Established Member
Associate Staff
Events Co-ordinator
Joined
16 Jan 2016
Messages
3,019
Location
Dumfries
So in August he's enouraging people to flock to pubs and restaurants, and in September he's advocating long-term restrictions on pubs and restaurants. Typical government flip-flopping.

Anyone still think he would make a good leader?
Nope, although I do wonder if what he says actually represents his personal beliefs or it's just what Cummings told him to say.
 

Bikeman78

Established Member
Joined
26 Apr 2018
Messages
4,495
Indeed, but all you get if you ever dare challenge such people and point out the dire economic and health consequences of all this, is "better than dying on a ventilator though, hun".
Yet 1700 people per day die of other causes in the UK. Are they going to try and stop them too or do they simply deny that it's happening?
 

island

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2010
Messages
15,982
Location
0036
I can't help thinking that the restrictions may be relaxed later this year, perhaps just before Christmas, whatever the government says now. Depending on whether numbers stabilise you may see something like:-

  • At the end of October, pub closing time extended to 11pm and the rule of 6 changed to the rule of 8.
  • At the end of November, pub closing time extended to midnight, the rule of 8 changed to the rule of 10 and people allowed to meet other households in private home and gardens.
People are currently allowed to meet other households in private homes and gardens in England, so that would not be a change.
 

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
17,685
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
So in August he's enouraging people to flock to pubs and restaurants, and in September he's advocating long-term restrictions on pubs and restaurants. Typical government flip-flopping.

Anyone still think he would make a good leader?

I still have a sickly feeling that a lot of what he has done so far has been a popularity-boosting exercise, knowing that he stands a chance of replacing Boris in relatively short order.

Completely agree that it was irresponsible to pack out restaurants last month. There was absolutely no need for it.
 

duncanp

Established Member
Joined
16 Aug 2012
Messages
4,856
People are currently allowed to meet other households in private homes and gardens in England, so that would not be a change.

Except in local lockdown areas, one of which is where I live in the West Midlands.

There are reports of a "traffic light" system whereby each area in England is classified Red, Amber or Green depending on the level of infection, and each classification would have a differing level of restrictions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top