Jump to content

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Chris B said:

 

So yeah, other than my nan dying on him, anyone else struggling to convince people that, yes, they need to take this seriously?

 

Yes, had a big falling out with my sister who thought it would be okay to have my 70+ parents babysit their daughter last weekend while they went on the piss. My father is diabetic and recovering from a triple bypass operation. My brother-in-law had been on the piss at Cheltenham the day before.

Am I overreacting?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, jazzygeofferz said:

Eurovisuon could still be a thing where they show videos of the entries and have a vote on the best song? 

Have Eden present it and go full on 1990's MTV.

hqdefault.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, David said:

There are a lot of personal choices we all make that directly impact other people though, isn't there? Where do we draw the line? What's an arrest-worthy offence? For what it's worth, I didn't agree with the smoking ban in pubs. I believe it should have been the call of the landlords themselves. 

I don't smoke, and never have. It's a disgusting habit, and I would never frequent a pub where smoking is permitted. However, it should be the choice of the person who owns the business. If they wish to cut away a lot of their paying customers to allow smoking then that's on them.

We elect a government to make decisions for the country as a whole. Some things wouldn't change without enforcement. Are you saying there should be no speed limits, for example? Car drivers should be allowed to decide for themselves if they want to speed or not. As soon as there's a significant negative impact on people as a result of someone elses choice, then it becomes an issue for government consideration. Would we be where we are with a lack of smoking in public places if it had never been enforced? Probably not. Does the vast majority of the population support the band. Probably so. Case closed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Hannibal Scorch said:

Request. It’s supposed to be for those who need it as opposed to everyone gets it just by having a mortgage 

Further to this point, I was trying to find about this last night as we have a mortgage, and taking a mortgage holiday could have an effect on your credit score in normal circumstances. Not to the point that you won’t ever be able to get credit, but it is something to consider. Obviously these are not what would be considered normal circumstances, but the government haven’t made it clear who it’s going to work yet.

I’m sure if there is someone on here who works in that sector they’ll be able to go into more detail.

Edited by WyattSheepMask

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Chris B said:

 

So yeah, other than my nan dying on him, anyone else struggling to convince people that, yes, they need to take this seriously?

 

my folks (72 and 74) on Monday were telling me how earlier int the day my dad went to two 'spoons (on public transport) and when i asked about the whole staying inside for the over 70s they said they were going to wear "baseball caps and sunglasses" so they look younger, because obviously it's about not getting caught, rather than reducing your chance of exposure / spreading it. Then they jokingly said they'll have to remember to tell me where the will is kept. 

Edited by Harry Wiseau
missed out a few words didnt i, tsk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Your Fight Site said:

Yeah. The promotion could run, and you could win a European city break whilst travel is off and borders are closed.

As if anyone has ever won anything more impressive then an Oat So Simple Porridge or free Medium Drink.  

@WyattSheepMask I have no idea if that is across the board or it varies from establishment. It's awful if it's true though because Halifax just asked if I wanted to have one, not informing me there could have an affect on my credit (I declined it anyway). But I am guessing this could be the only difference between the government announcing it and before because I doubt the Government would advise applying for help if it would have a negative effect. But yes, more clarity is needed

Edited by Hannibal Scorch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Guy Bifkin said:

Yes, had a big falling out with my sister who thought it would be okay to have my 70+ parents babysit their daughter last weekend while they went on the piss. My father is diabetic and recovering from a triple bypass operation. My brother-in-law had been on the piss at Cheltenham the day before.

Am I overreacting?  

Erm not even slightly over overreacting. Your Dad should be making every effort to not even leave the house. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just found out that The charity shop I volunteer in has closed for the foreseeable future due to the Cv, gutted, I loved the interaction 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m gutted Glastonbury has been cancelled. I love that weekend when all the Glasto twats have fucked off and I can avoid the smelly pricks. But the Queen must be protected at all costs so it’s fair enough. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Keith Houchen said:

I’m gutted Glastonbury has been cancelled. I love that weekend when all the Glasto twats have fucked off and I can avoid the smelly pricks. But the Queen must be protected at all costs so it’s fair enough. 

I'm glad Glastonbury's been cancelled, So I don't have to put up with "Gap Year hippies" clogging the roads up with their rented VW campers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, Chunk said:

We elect a government to make decisions for the country as a whole. Some things wouldn't change without enforcement. Are you saying there should be no speed limits, for example? Car drivers should be allowed to decide for themselves if they want to speed or not. As soon as there's a significant negative impact on people as a result of someone elses choice, then it becomes an issue for government consideration. Would we be where we are with a lack of smoking in public places if it had never been enforced? Probably not. Does the vast majority of the population support the band. Probably so. Case closed.

Okay, we've come back to the matter of enforcement. That's what I mentioned in my initial post.

If someone is found breaking the speed limit, they're breaking the law. There's a set system in place to punish those involved. We know the ramifications of breaking that law.

What I'm asking, and have been asking since this whole debate kicked off, is if those who want the government to force businesses to close and force people to stay indoors rather than advise them to do so, are happy with those who refuse being dealt with as criminals? Do we want these situations dealt with as a matter of law?

Should someone be arrested for walking the street without an appropriate reason? Or if someone opens their business because they desperately need the money, should they be arrested?

The point I was making is that the government can't issue demands without being prepared to back them up with punishments. Otherwise, what's the fucking point? If Boris announced tomorrow to the media that he was implementing demands that people stay off the street and that businesses close, he'll be asked what would happen to those who don't comply, wouldn't he?

As noted, Spain are more than happy to send the army onto the streets and threaten old people who have the audacity to walk their dog without identification. They have previous for that kind of shite, and their treatment of the Catalan citizens who tried to vote a while back is a classic example of the fascism that has always bubbled beneath the surface there.

Would we want to see similar actions here? I'd assume not, which is why the government are advising rather than demanding. Most people will be smart about it, and will take the precautions needed. I'm in Glasgow, and the place is fairly empty nowadays. There's people discreetly going about their business, but very few are in the pubs now, and things seem fairly positive as well as cautious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a rather clear difference between enforcing laws in a proper, even-handed manner with which all laws should be enforced, and mimicking the brownshirt tactics of the Spanish police. It's not a binary choice between battered pensioners having their pets snatched or just absolving the government's responsibility to curtail behaviour that risks worsening a global epidemic.

Edited by Uncle Zeb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Hannibal Scorch said:

Buy to let mortgages  are currently not included as part of the relief scheme 

Then they need to be changing that, it solves nothing to kick a tenant out based on 2 months arrears, to then have to have the bank repo the house, they then cant sell. 

For the sake of saying two months off all round.

Edited by quote the raven

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Uncle Zeb said:

Screenshot-20200318-092738-2.png

Well, as long as it wasn't a concrete offer, that's alright then.

You can almost here trump "so erm i hear you have a vaccine, i know you make the best, greatest vaccines top notch vaccines i have money"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...