|
|
Post by greenboy on Oct 11, 2020 15:04:44 GMT
Close at 11pm and there will be the same scenario one hour later, the only difference will be that people will have consumed more alcohol by then and will be acting even more irresponsibly. And what exactly happened in August before the new restrictions where brought in when the government were encouraging you to use the hospitality sector, and were free to pick there own opening hours? Answer not a lot. So this behaviour is a direct result of this hard and fast closing time policy ... End of story. August showed the previous policy worked. The reinfection rate was lower in August, don't get me wrong I'd like to be able to stay in the pub until 11pm or later and I'm as fed up with this whole covid situation as anybody else is but there is no getting away from the fact that the more alcohol people consume the more irresponsible they behave. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2020 15:04:47 GMT
Did you have this problem before the 10pm curfew? No. The 'Eat Out On Us?' campaign passed off with out event in August, when bars and restaurants were open beyond 10pm. Now Sept/Oct ... issues. Well what else has changed if it is not the stupid 10pm across the board closing time@ Staggering closures wouldn’t work either as it would encourage people to go from business to business. Also who would decide in an area who gets to close at 9 and who closes at 11? As I stated above I don’t think closing at 10 does much except encourage more irresponsible behaviour in certain groups but having traveled after midnight on a Saturday night in central London it has very much emptied town when there would normally be thousands milling around so it has in some way done what it was expected to do. It doesn’t mean I agree with it though. They could stop entrance after a certain time to stop people going from pub to pub. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2020 15:12:01 GMT
Staggering closures wouldn’t work either as it would encourage people to go from business to business. Also who would decide in an area who gets to close at 9 and who closes at 11? As I stated above I don’t think closing at 10 does much except encourage more irresponsible behaviour in certain groups but having traveled after midnight on a Saturday night in central London it has very much emptied town when there would normally be thousands milling around so it has in some way done what it was expected to do. It doesn’t mean I agree with it though. Was it a problem in August? No, but then there wasn’t the movement of hundreds of thousands of uni students and the weather was considerably warmer, COVID-19 is known to breed in cold weather. Things evolved and the government had to do something, again not saying it was the best option as we all know people are more likely to stay home in colder months. |
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Oct 11, 2020 15:15:37 GMT
Was it a problem in August? No, but then there wasn’t the movement of hundreds of thousands of uni students and the weather was considerably warmer, COVID-19 is known to breed in cold weather. Things evolved and the government had to do something, again not saying it was the best option as we all know people are more likely to stay home in colder months. Think the hundreds of thousands is an exaggeration, but these students lived somewhere in August, just in different places ... they have not magically appeared ... and I would not call Peckham a student hotspot either, so not sure how the whole student argument is relevant in this instance. Surely the colder weather argument is backing staggering closing time rather than every establishment kicking people out dead on 10. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2020 15:22:06 GMT
No, but then there wasn’t the movement of hundreds of thousands of uni students and the weather was considerably warmer, COVID-19 is known to breed in cold weather. Things evolved and the government had to do something, again not saying it was the best option as we all know people are more likely to stay home in colder months. Think the hundreds of thousands is an exaggeration, but these students lived somewhere in August, just in different places ... they have not magically appeared ... and I would not call Peckham a student hotspot either, so not sure how the whole student argument is relevant in this instance. Students live everywhere in London as it’s easy to travel, I was using an example of what has changed as you asked. Look at Richmond, now it has recorded a rise in the last week but they have worked the data and realised the increase is down to students moving away and still recording their home address when taking a test and other factors including people falsifying their addresses when taking tests. Now if every student was still giving their home address but living hundreds of miles away that would be a factor for increases. I am not blaming students just providing an example like you asked for! |
|
|
|
Post by bus12451 on Oct 11, 2020 15:28:32 GMT
This is what's wrong with this country Get everything to shut at the same time, what did they think would happen. A staggered approached over the next two hours has to be a better approach. It does not need much of a scientific qualification to work that one out. A staggered approach wouldn't work as that would bring about inequality. The 10pm curfew was criticised from the start for precisely all the reasons in the above posts. If the gov really want the curfew to work then they need to be putting more police on the streets at night and harsher penalties otherwise nothing will change. Law enforcement in this country is a joke. Those selfish idiots playing cricket along with the group surrounding them had already been dispersed long before the police arrived. |
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Oct 11, 2020 15:42:17 GMT
Get everything to shut at the same time, what did they think would happen. A staggered approached over the next two hours has to be a better approach. It does not need much of a scientific qualification to work that one out. A staggered approach wouldn't work as that would bring about inequality. The 10pm curfew was criticised from the start for precisely all the reasons in the above posts. If the gov really want the curfew to work then they need to be putting more police on the streets at night and harsher penalties otherwise nothing will change. Law enforcement in this country is a joke. Those selfish idiots playing cricket along with the group surrounding them had already been dispersed long before the police arrived. Did a staggered approach bring inequality in August? |
|
|
|
Post by bus12451 on Oct 11, 2020 16:04:16 GMT
A staggered approach wouldn't work as that would bring about inequality. The 10pm curfew was criticised from the start for precisely all the reasons in the above posts. If the gov really want the curfew to work then they need to be putting more police on the streets at night and harsher penalties otherwise nothing will change. Law enforcement in this country is a joke. Those selfish idiots playing cricket along with the group surrounding them had already been dispersed long before the police arrived. Did a staggered approach bring inequality in August? No, because spending in the hospitality sector was encouraged back then, when the R number was much lower than it is now. Businesses also had control over their opening and closing times. |
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Oct 11, 2020 16:47:59 GMT
No, but then there wasn’t the movement of hundreds of thousands of uni students and the weather was considerably warmer, COVID-19 is known to breed in cold weather. Things evolved and the government had to do something, again not saying it was the best option as we all know people are more likely to stay home in colder months. Think the hundreds of thousands is an exaggeration, but these students lived somewhere in August, just in different places ... they have not magically appeared ... and I would not call Peckham a student hotspot either, so not sure how the whole student argument is relevant in this instance. Surely the colder weather argument is backing staggering closing time rather than every establishment kicking people out dead on 10. Quite a vast number of Goldsmiths students socialise in and around Peckham. |
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Oct 11, 2020 17:12:02 GMT
Did a staggered approach bring inequality in August? No, because spending in the hospitality sector was encouraged back then, when the R number was much lower than it is now. Businesses also had control over their opening and closing times. Why take that control away from the businesses? |
|
|
|
Post by bus12451 on Oct 11, 2020 17:23:54 GMT
No, because spending in the hospitality sector was encouraged back then, when the R number was much lower than it is now. Businesses also had control over their opening and closing times. Why take that control away from the businesses? I wish it could be that way but pubs are profit motivated, so they'll stay open for as long as possible while those inside intoxicate their heads off. The reality is that many are irresponsible, so the gov can't trust people to use their "common sense" as quoted by BJ so they instead have to take action to control the spread. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2020 17:27:10 GMT
No, because spending in the hospitality sector was encouraged back then, when the R number was much lower than it is now. Businesses also had control over their opening and closing times. Why take that control away from the businesses? Because if businesses had their way they would open all hours to recoup losses from earlier in the year making things potentially even worse. You may not like it but it is about protecting everyone from spreading the virus. |
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Oct 11, 2020 17:56:34 GMT
Why take that control away from the businesses? Because if businesses had their way they would open all hours to recoup losses from earlier in the year making things potentially even worse. You may not like it but it is about protecting everyone from spreading the virus. 3% of cases originated in pubs and restaurants, 44% in schools and universities ... will it make much difference? |
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Oct 11, 2020 18:01:51 GMT
Why take that control away from the businesses? I wish it could be that way but pubs are profit motivated, so they'll stay open for as long as possible while those inside intoxicate their heads off. The reality is that many are irresponsible, so the gov can't trust people to use their "common sense" as quoted by BJ so they instead have to take action to control the spread. Again in 2 months we have gone from encouraging and supporting the hospitality sector, to saying they can't be trusted ... most pubs I have been in lately take social distancing and cleanliness very seriously. Sorry, they are just being scapegoated as an easy target ... just like motorist would be if they could make up the faintest of links to the spread of Covid. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2020 18:14:56 GMT
Because if businesses had their way they would open all hours to recoup losses from earlier in the year making things potentially even worse. You may not like it but it is about protecting everyone from spreading the virus. 3% of cases originated in pubs and restaurants, 44% in schools and universities ... will it make much difference? Let’s be honest no one can be 100% sure where they catch COVID so these figures are entirely speculative and could never be proven. |
|
