My point is there's a lot more to read behind the headline on PPE. Because we didn't actually end up with what we needed during a shortage, and it's something that would resonate with far more people than the refurbishment of Boris' house.
Yes I can see that point now but initially you were trivialising flatgate . When all could be connected imo. Yes there’s more behind the headlines I’m sure but we not getting that and also they’ll be more behind the headlines were fed on flatgate. This could be a shitfest of all sorts of things influenced by the PM because of gratuities including the holding back of some entertainment services and not others . The Main Media are imo protecting him or at least the Govt or Party .
As to the merits of the issue, I have no strong views one way or the other but on balance I think that the government were right to exercise caution. As to the legal issues involved, I thought that the Lord/Osmond legal challenge was ill-conceived from the outset and highly likely to fail, which is pretty much what I said in post #02. You might even argue that it was a waste of the time of a government engaged in fighting a major pandemic. If people really want a government to be challenged at every turn then they would be better advised not handing them a 80-seat majority. To argue that the government had no information or advice upon which to make their decision seems naive to me.
I know you'll not answer as you tend to make these comments and then not actually give much real context to the responses put to you. But I'd be interested to know why you think it's fair to be cautious with hospitality, where investment in creating Covid secure environments, processes, and service cycles has been lauded, but other sectors are allowed almost free will to open without those restrictions? Do you think that it wasn't right to hold the government to account when there isn't any data to support enforcing these restrictions? Are you saying we should just accept that the government make decisions based on our best interests and know what's best for us? What's your opinion on being able to walk to the counter in Starbucks to then sit outside, but not be allowed to order inside a pub/restaurant to then sit outside? Same question, but queue up like a rugby scrum to get in a Primark?
I don't think I did say it was fair, did I? There's a lot of things about Covid that aren't fair. But unless you suddenly open up everything at once then it follows that some things will come first. It could have been the other way around. I still think that given we have been on the third lockdown cycle it has been right to be cautious. I can tell you that I have been present in more than one establishment during the restrictions where the secure processes you speak of appeared to have been thrown out of the window. It's very difficult to police, so I'm not surprised the government erred on the side of caution. This particular legal challenge was never likely to hold the government to account, as I said back on 3rd April. And I don't share the view that the government did not have any information or advice upon which to base their restrictions. What sense does that make? What possible motive could they have had for that? But do I believe that the government should be held to account in general? Yes, of course I do. I am concerned by their avowed intention to narrow the scope of legal actions for judicial review in the Administrative Court. But I believe there is a duty on people not to pursue such challenges frivolously if we wish to see the right to do so maintained.
To be honest you've kind of abstained from passing any comment on specifics in the past so appreciate the context in this reply. All makes sense and very little I would disagree with or challenge on, but I do think it's extremely unfair to create a unique set of restrictions for a sector where all the data that we have available points to it being low risk. Even in a cautious approach. One more thing though. Virtually nobody within the industry thought this legal challenge would result in anything opening earlier, but we did know it would contribute to making discussions on other issues and challenges much fairer. This has been proven thus far and we'll continue to see the benefits of this action over the weeks and months to come. It was worthwhile and yet again showed that the government are unwilling to show any kind of evidence to support or disprove the decisions they're making.
Not seeing much false hope or outcry from people that were ‘lied’ to or given the impression that their problems would be solved. Universal support for what this case has done to decisions made so far and what decisions are likely to come, and proof standing up for what is right matters. What we do see though is more government corruption, dates over data, and an attack on an industry that offers a significant amount more to society than just ‘having a pint’. Nobody can explain that attack just like they can’t explain why there’s different rules for different retail outlets.
Just a technical observation here, Loko. What Mr Lord now publishes is described as an 'impact assessment'. So that presumably is commenting on the impact of the policy they have decided upon on various stakeholders. So I would anticipate that there was other information (SAGE advice, etc,etc) that the government relied upon in reaching the decision in the first place? I imagine that that information would have been considered had the judicial review application got past first base?
Who would have thought that shutting us down for 12 months, forcing us to interact with only those in our household, and putting what people have worked tirelessly to build at at risk, would leave to more alcohol related deaths. Next step; even tougher legislation on the alcohol industry with zero thoughts given to why these people are turning to alcohol.
it did say "Most deaths were related to long-term drinking problems and dependency." so not necessarily to do with lockdown.
But the fact it's come in a year with all this included could easily lead you to argue that the dependency increased and accelerated their health problems. But that won't be considered when new legislation comes, which was the main point I was making.
Deaths 7,423 in a population of 65m. I know that in addition there will be many thousands of people whose lives are blighted by alcohol abuse but on the other side of this there are millions of ordinary people who enjoy a social drink and drink responsibly It just seems to me that the brewing industry is being targeted in a puritanical manner.
I'm sure the fact that it's easier to get into Fort Knox than get to see your doctor has nothing to do with it either?
It don't stop there. The Gambling Commission is conducting a review of existing legislation that might make it difficult for those interested to get a decent bet on.