Lockdown Imminent
Discussion
pip t said:
Most venues, if run at 2m social distancing can achieve around 20% capacity. With 1m social distancing, around 30-40% depending on the layout of the venue. It just doesn’t add up.
Are they allowing for the fact that the vast majority of the audience are usually couples so social distancing is not needed between each and every member of the audience ?Alucidnation said:
Is that not ageist? Not sure they're allowed to do that?Leicester Loyal said:
Alucidnation said:
Is that not ageist? Not sure they're allowed to do that?Frank7 said:
Leicester Loyal said:
Alucidnation said:
Is that not ageist? Not sure they're allowed to do that?
d doormen saying "21 and over" when I was a teenager were breaking the law!Who can I sue?
Leicester Loyal said:
Alucidnation said:
Is that not ageist? Not sure they're allowed to do that?https://www.bcrphastings.com/legal-reminder-refusi...
Link said:
Under the Equality Act 2010, “Everyone accessing your…facilities…, should do so fairly, regardless of their age, gender, race, sexual orientation, disability, gender reassignment, religion or belief”. Therefore you cannot refuse any person access to your premises or, indeed, refuse them any level of service you would otherwise provide to customers on any of those grounds
They could refuse service to those who have previously behaved badly though.anonymoususer said:
Eh up Tory boy almost saying things are returning to normal
hmmmm
Good. 44.5k deaths of /with coronavirus since this all started, in a population of 60 odd million.hmmmm
It's 44.5k too many, but it's time for people who want to go back to more relative normality than they are now to be able to do that.
It's been a long time coming.
Mojooo said:
The real question is whether the public will accept lock down 2 or whether most people are at the stage of not caring of deaths anymore.
If you're under 45, I wouldn't blame you for ignoring it, providing you avoided contact with the over 45s.
Edited by youngsyr on Thursday 9th July 23:38
youngsyr said:
If you're under 45, I wouldn't blame you for ignoring it, providing you avoided contact with the over 45s.
Here's a 70 year old who ignored the first lockdown, and will ignore any subsequent one. Everyone I know in my age group, apart from the few about to drop for non-CV19 reasons, has the same attitude, the extremely vulnerable aside, it's only authoritarians, skivers, and idiots who have taken any notice of the government.Edited by youngsyr on Thursday 9th July 23:38
Older people have a greater chance of dying at any point than younger people, regardless of pandemics, real or imagined.
Edited by John Locke on Friday 10th July 06:28
John Locke said:
Here's a 70 year old who ignored the first lockdown, and will ignore any subsequent one. Everyone I know in my age group, apart from the few about to drop for non-CV19 reasons, has the same attitude, the extremely vulnerable aside, it's only authoritarians, skivers, and idiots who have taken any notice of the government.
Older people have a greater chance of dying at any point than younger people, regardless of pandemics, real or imagined.
Hear hear! Older people have a greater chance of dying at any point than younger people, regardless of pandemics, real or imagined.
Edited by John Locke on Friday 10th July 06:28
I’m 45 (currently) and looking at the chart, if only I was born 12 months later I’d have approximately 100 times less chance of death .
Seems legit to me! Especially when you lump the age groups together in 19 year blocks...
John Locke said:
youngsyr said:
If you're under 45, I wouldn't blame you for ignoring it, providing you avoided contact with the over 45s.
Here's a 70 year old who ignored the first lockdown, and will ignore any subsequent one. Everyone I know in my age group, apart from the few about to drop for non-CV19 reasons, has the same attitude, the extremely vulnerable aside, it's only authoritarians, skivers, and idiots who have taken any notice of the government.Edited by youngsyr on Thursday 9th July 23:38
Older people have a greater chance of dying at any point than younger people, regardless of pandemics, real or imagined.
Edited by John Locke on Friday 10th July 06:28
And we wonder why our death rate has been high.
Fwiw im all for opening things up now as quickly as possible now and looking at local more targetted lockdowns if necessary
John Locke said:
Here's a 70 year old who ignored the first lockdown, and will ignore any subsequent one. Everyone I know in my age group, apart from the few about to drop for non-CV19 reasons, has the same attitude, the extremely vulnerable aside, it's only authoritarians, skivers, and idiots who have taken any notice of the government.
Older people have a greater chance of dying at any point than younger people, regardless of pandemics, real or imagined.
What's your fine total up to now then?Older people have a greater chance of dying at any point than younger people, regardless of pandemics, real or imagined.
Edited by John Locke on Friday 10th July 06:28
Or did you mean you moan loudly about the lockdown while obediently following it?
Stay in Bed Instead said:
chrispmartha said:
Oh well as long as John Locke's ok that’s fine.
And we wonder why our death rate has been high.
Fwiw im all for opening things up now as quickly as possible now and looking at local more targetted lockdowns if necessary
John is responsible for the death rate?And we wonder why our death rate has been high.
Fwiw im all for opening things up now as quickly as possible now and looking at local more targetted lockdowns if necessary
"And we wonder why our death rate has been high."
Stay in Bed Instead said:
chrispmartha said:
Oh well as long as John Locke's ok that’s fine.
And we wonder why our death rate has been high.
Fwiw im all for opening things up now as quickly as possible now and looking at local more targetted lockdowns if necessary
John is responsible for the death rate?And we wonder why our death rate has been high.
Fwiw im all for opening things up now as quickly as possible now and looking at local more targetted lockdowns if necessary
People with Johns selfish attitude will have added to it, although I expect hes just playing the internet hard man to be honest
Edited by chrispmartha on Friday 10th July 08:29
Stay in Bed Instead said:
chrispmartha said:
Yes because that’s exactly what I said isn’t it!
People with Johns selfish attitude will have added to it, although I expect hes just playing the internet hard man to be honest
Has John contracted the virus?People with Johns selfish attitude will have added to it, although I expect hes just playing the internet hard man to be honest
As much as John thinks its all about him it isn’t
frisbee said:
John Locke said:
Here's a 70 year old who ignored the first lockdown, and will ignore any subsequent one. Everyone I know in my age group, apart from the few about to drop for non-CV19 reasons, has the same attitude, the extremely vulnerable aside, it's only authoritarians, skivers, and idiots who have taken any notice of the government.
Older people have a greater chance of dying at any point than younger people, regardless of pandemics, real or imagined.
What's your fine total up to now then?Older people have a greater chance of dying at any point than younger people, regardless of pandemics, real or imagined.
Edited by John Locke on Friday 10th July 06:28
Or did you mean you moan loudly about the lockdown while obediently following it?
No I studiously ignored it, making “unnecessary” car journeys and meeting friends and family wherever and whenever I felt like it. I confess to protesting loudly about it too.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff