Anecdotal report from the "Eat Out to Help Out" front line. Man goes into KFC and orders a bargain bucket, 20 wings and 6 mini-burgers along with 8 regular fries. Counter staff remind him he has to sit in and eat to get the 50% off.
Man says he will, gets his order, collects the 50% off and sits down at a corner table. He eats a wing then produces a bag, puts all the rest of the food in the bag and leaves.
KFC are now serving all meals open on a tray to prevent that trick.
McDonalds are still offering the food in bags so people are over-ordering, claiming they will eat in, pocketing the discount and then leaving.
Anecdotal report from the "Eat Out to Help Out" front line. Man goes into KFC and orders a bargain bucket, 20 wings and 6 mini-burgers along with 8 regular fries. Counter staff remind him he has to sit in and eat to get the 50% off.
Man says he will, gets his order, collects the 50% off and sits down at a corner table. He eats a wing then produces a bag, puts all the rest of the food in the bag and leaves.
KFC are now serving all meals open on a tray to prevent that trick.
McDonalds are still offering the food in bags so people are over-ordering, claiming they will eat in, pocketing the discount and then leaving.
Do the shops actually care? Surely it's the best of all worlds...
Stimulated economic activity AND less risk of spreading COVID!
There was some gang trouble near me the other night - Someone who remonstrated with the youth who were causing the ruckus was told by one of them that to complain about noise (at 2 am) was racist.
Anecdotal report from the "Eat Out to Help Out" front line. Man goes into KFC and orders a bargain bucket, 20 wings and 6 mini-burgers along with 8 regular fries. Counter staff remind him he has to sit in and eat to get the 50% off.
Man says he will, gets his order, collects the 50% off and sits down at a corner table. He eats a wing then produces a bag, puts all the rest of the food in the bag and leaves.
KFC are now serving all meals open on a tray to prevent that trick.
McDonalds are still offering the food in bags so people are over-ordering, claiming they will eat in, pocketing the discount and then leaving.
Surely if one man ordered all that by himself then the maximum discount of £10 would apply?
I doubt many people know who Claire Fox is or care much if told.
I've heard a couple of hostile comments about JoJo though and understandably so.
Arguably the worst peerage since Warsi.
Chakrabati?
There was nothing wrong with Chakrabarti's peerage - her behaviour afterwards is less impressive.
She was appointed a peer 3 months after the Charabarti report was prepared and published, and after she had said that her independence would not be compromised.
Indeed yes. It would have been more amazing, albeit in a good way, if there hadn’t been.
But the worst part about this explosion is buried towards the bottom of the report.
It’s destroyed the port of Beirut and left it unusable.
How is aid going to get in?
You mean in general, or specifically to assist with this disaster?
Both. Lebanon needed help urgently even before this.
But also, the main airport is in the port. It appears to have been damaged, I don’t know how badly.
Even if it hadn’t there are comparatively few people who could fly in aid on the scale needed. Realistically, we would be talking about the USAF.
And nobody can get at it overland because it’s surrounded by Syria and Israel.
Israel could do itself a power of good if it provided or allowed in humanitarian aid through its border to Lebanon. That poor country. RIP for those killed.it is so sad.
It could - but it’s not as simple as that. The south is controlled by Hezbollah. They may not let aid through, or demand payment for it. Even if they did, and didn’t, they would probably still try to take advantage to attack Israel.
So I do not think the Israelis will allow aid in from Haifa, even though it would be a diplomatic coup and a fine humanitarian gesture.
Fair play, I misjudged them. Happy to be proved wrong on this!
However have they said how it will get there?
Across the land border that wasn't otherwise available?
But that would effectively mean handing it to Hezbollah.
Do you honestly think the Israelis will do that? Because pleased though I am they have offered aid to the innocent people of Beirut the idea they will help their real enemies is one I find difficult to get my head wrong.
Tripoli in the north of Lebanon has a seaport.
And right now that is the only way food, fuel or medical supplies can be got to seven million people.
I doubt many people know who Claire Fox is or care much if told.
I've heard a couple of hostile comments about JoJo though and understandably so.
Arguably the worst peerage since Warsi.
Chakrabati?
There was nothing wrong with Chakrabarti's peerage - her behaviour afterwards is less impressive.
She was appointed a peer 3 months after the Charabarti report was prepared and published, and after she had said that her independence would not be compromised.
The report being claimed to be "independent"........
Do the shops actually care? Surely it's the best of all worlds...
Stimulated economic activity AND less risk of spreading COVID!
Of course KFC and MacDonalds can afford the losses - other outlets perhaps less so.
As for not spreading Covid - the people may not spend as long in the restaurant but they are still there and can still spread the virus.
Why would there be losses? I'm not sure how it works - presumably the restaurants claim on evidence of sale? If somebody purchases and leaves then that doesn't prevent them claiming the additional cash (huge potential for fraud i'm sure).
Do the shops actually care? Surely it's the best of all worlds...
Stimulated economic activity AND less risk of spreading COVID!
Of course KFC and MacDonalds can afford the losses - other outlets perhaps less so.
As for not spreading Covid - the people may not spend as long in the restaurant but they are still there and can still spread the virus.
What losses? As far as the outlet is concerned the food is paid for in full.
It's just like someone ordering food from a coffee shop saying they will take it out so it's at cheaper price and then sitting down after they get the food. The customer is ripping off HMRC not the outlet.
What losses? As far as the outlet is concerned the food is paid for in full.
It's just like someone ordering food from a coffee shop saying they will take it out so it's at cheaper price and then sitting down after they get the food. The customer is ripping off HMRC not the outlet.
I sit corrected - as @alex has already pointed out.
Okay - turning the question on its head - do you think it's right we should see this kind of fraud? The idea is for people to sit in restaurants and get used to eating out in company again - it's not presumably for people to get cheap food.
The second wave is crashing through Spain at the moment. I really think the government needs to rethink the idea of quarantine and replace it with flight bans. Right now British people are going to Spain, coming back infected and then not doing the quarantine because no one is enforcing it.
I don't understand why it matters if you eat in or not. Surely if its intended aim is to support the industry, it should apply either way.
The aim is more to persuade people it is safe to sit and eat a restaurant or cafe meal again imho.
Indeed, people have been getting takeaways and deliveries throughout. That's not the point of this scheme.
But I think its somewhat inevitable some customers would abuse it. I'm not sure how much its on the restaurant to police their customers.
I thought perhaps it was aimed more at the sit down restaurants that didn't do takeaways. Not specifically to encourage people to have a sit down MaccieD's instead of a takeaway. It's just the way it was framed it wasn't possible to distinguish so those that did both have benefitted.
The second wave is crashing through Spain at the moment. I really think the government needs to rethink the idea of quarantine and replace it with flight bans. Right now British people are going to Spain, coming back infected and then not doing the quarantine because no one is enforcing it.
There must have been signficant back reporting for today's figure though? It can't have gone routinely from 2,500 to 5,800 cases in one day.
I don't understand why it matters if you eat in or not. Surely if its intended aim is to support the industry, it should apply either way.
The aim is more to persuade people it is safe to sit and eat a restaurant or cafe meal again imho.
Indeed, people have been getting takeaways and deliveries throughout. That's not the point of this scheme.
But I think its somewhat inevitable some customers would abuse it. I'm not sure how much its on the restaurant to police their customers.
I thought perhaps it was aimed more at the sit down restaurants that didn't do takeaways. Not specifically to encourage people to have a sit down MaccieD's instead of a takeaway. It's just the way it was framed it wasn't possible to distinguish so those that did both have benefitted.
How could you frame it otherwise?
A great many restaurants that never previously did takeaways have started to do so in recent months to try and keep at least some cash in the tills - while many more have for years done takeaways as a side interest in order to get extra cash even if its not the main element of the business. And a few more restaurants in recent years have turned to things like Uber Eats in order to get more revenue, while again remaining properly restaurants and not takeaways.
Other than demanding that people sit at a table I'm not sure how much more could be done to distinguish the two?
The pub had about 80+ diners there at 2pm, and another 80+ at 4pm (1:45 hour slots max). A lot of interest. And probably double the staff that it would have been otherwise.
I'm wondering if this thing is going to completely pay for itself - the Govt pay about 1/4-1/3 of the bill, but save on the furlough costs, get the income tax, get the VAT, all the revenue from the supply chain.
Has anyone run the numbers?
And we all get the sanity benefits, and the impetus to get out of the door which is fine in 90%+ of the country.
Plus I expect restaurants and pubs will need the extra cash to help tide over the winter.
The pub had about 80+ diners there at 2pm, and another 80+ at 4pm (1:45 hour slots max). A lot of interest. And probably double the staff that it would have been otherwise.
I'm wondering if this thing is going to completely pay for itself - the Govt pay about 1/4-1/3 of the bill, but save on the furlough costs, get the income tax, get the VAT, all the revenue from the supply chain.
Has anyone run the numbers?
And we all get the sanity benefits, and the impetus to get out of the door which is fine in 90%+ of the country.
Interesting point Matt. Possible, very possible. Indeed quite probable if it saves businesses from collapse.
Also there is no discount on alcohol. Government gets full duty paid and VAT on alcohol.
I don't understand why it matters if you eat in or not. Surely if its intended aim is to support the industry, it should apply either way.
The aim is more to persuade people it is safe to sit and eat a restaurant or cafe meal again imho.
Indeed, people have been getting takeaways and deliveries throughout. That's not the point of this scheme.
But I think its somewhat inevitable some customers would abuse it. I'm not sure how much its on the restaurant to police their customers.
I thought perhaps it was aimed more at the sit down restaurants that didn't do takeaways. Not specifically to encourage people to have a sit down MaccieD's instead of a takeaway. It's just the way it was framed it wasn't possible to distinguish so those that did both have benefitted.
How could you frame it otherwise?
A great many restaurants that never previously did takeaways have started to do so in recent months to try and keep at least some cash in the tills - while many more have for years done takeaways as a side interest in order to get extra cash even if its not the main element of the business. And a few more restaurants in recent years have turned to things like Uber Eats in order to get more revenue, while again remaining properly restaurants and not takeaways.
Other than demanding that people sit at a table I'm not sure how much more could be done to distinguish the two?
I wasn't saying they could. Just pointing out that the primary aim was to support restaurants that couldn't survive as a takeaway option (if it was even an option). It wasn't to encourage sit down dining at MccDonalds. So the Government really don't care that much about abuse of the rules for the latter. The issue might be more that the likes of KfC and McDonalds (not the intended beneficiaries) have embraced it enthusiastically. Whereas the "proper" restaurants, anecdotally not so much.
I don't understand why it matters if you eat in or not. Surely if its intended aim is to support the industry, it should apply either way.
The aim is more to persuade people it is safe to sit and eat a restaurant or cafe meal again imho.
Indeed, people have been getting takeaways and deliveries throughout. That's not the point of this scheme.
But I think its somewhat inevitable some customers would abuse it. I'm not sure how much its on the restaurant to police their customers.
I thought perhaps it was aimed more at the sit down restaurants that didn't do takeaways. Not specifically to encourage people to have a sit down MaccieD's instead of a takeaway. It's just the way it was framed it wasn't possible to distinguish so those that did both have benefitted.
How could you frame it otherwise?
A great many restaurants that never previously did takeaways have started to do so in recent months to try and keep at least some cash in the tills - while many more have for years done takeaways as a side interest in order to get extra cash even if its not the main element of the business. And a few more restaurants in recent years have turned to things like Uber Eats in order to get more revenue, while again remaining properly restaurants and not takeaways.
Other than demanding that people sit at a table I'm not sure how much more could be done to distinguish the two?
I wasn't saying they could. Just pointing out that the primary aim was to support restaurants that couldn't survive as a takeaway option (if it was even an option). It wasn't to encourage sit down dining at MccDonalds. So the Government really don't care that much about abuse of the rules for the latter. The issue might be more that the likes of KfC and McDonalds (not the intended beneficiaries) have embraced it enthusiastically. Whereas the "proper" restaurants, anecdotally not so much.
Like it or not McDonalds are a restaurant.
What snobbish people who don't like McDonalds want is neither here nor there, it is for the customers to decide where they want to eat.
Looks like Georgia's second wave is going to have a lower peak than it's first. It's daily positive tests has peaked and is heading downwards sicne the 10th July and deaths have levelled off and soon to fall.
Anyone any idea about how lockdowney it has got this time around?
I see that the Beirut explosion is approx 2700 tons of Ammonium Nitrate.
That is nearly the same explosive power as the full load in the SS Richard Montgomery, which is still there from WW2 in the Thames Estuary.
The water would absorb a lot of that though, wouldn't it?
Drawing a comparison not an equivalence out of interest - perhaps 75 years in the water makes it less effective anyway, and the damage in London would be a tsunami and floods.
I see that the Beirut explosion is approx 2700 tons of Ammonium Nitrate.
That is nearly the same explosive power as the full load in the SS Richard Montgomery, which is still there from WW2 in the Thames Estuary.
The water would absorb a lot of that though, wouldn't it?
Drawing a comparison not an equivalence out of interest - perhaps 75 years in the water makes it less effective anyway, and the damage in London would be a tsunami and floods.
Surely any wave would be absolutely negligible at London?
The pub had about 80+ diners there at 2pm, and another 80+ at 4pm (1:45 hour slots max). A lot of interest. And probably double the staff that it would have been otherwise.
I'm wondering if this thing is going to completely pay for itself - the Govt pay about 1/4-1/3 of the bill, but save on the furlough costs, get the income tax, get the VAT, all the revenue from the supply chain.
Has anyone run the numbers?
And we all get the sanity benefits, and the impetus to get out of the door which is fine in 90%+ of the country.
Interesting point Matt. Possible, very possible. Indeed quite probable if it saves businesses from collapse.
Also there is no discount on alcohol. Government gets full duty paid and VAT on alcohol.
Remember that VAT on alcohol is reduced to 5% for 6 months from 15 July 2020.
I don't understand why it matters if you eat in or not. Surely if its intended aim is to support the industry, it should apply either way.
The aim is more to persuade people it is safe to sit and eat a restaurant or cafe meal again imho.
Indeed, people have been getting takeaways and deliveries throughout. That's not the point of this scheme.
But I think its somewhat inevitable some customers would abuse it. I'm not sure how much its on the restaurant to police their customers.
I thought perhaps it was aimed more at the sit down restaurants that didn't do takeaways. Not specifically to encourage people to have a sit down MaccieD's instead of a takeaway. It's just the way it was framed it wasn't possible to distinguish so those that did both have benefitted.
How could you frame it otherwise?
A great many restaurants that never previously did takeaways have started to do so in recent months to try and keep at least some cash in the tills - while many more have for years done takeaways as a side interest in order to get extra cash even if its not the main element of the business. And a few more restaurants in recent years have turned to things like Uber Eats in order to get more revenue, while again remaining properly restaurants and not takeaways.
Other than demanding that people sit at a table I'm not sure how much more could be done to distinguish the two?
I wasn't saying they could. Just pointing out that the primary aim was to support restaurants that couldn't survive as a takeaway option (if it was even an option). It wasn't to encourage sit down dining at McDonalds. So the Government really don't care that much about abuse of the rules for the latter. The issue might be more that the likes of KfC and McDonalds (not the intended beneficiaries) have embraced it enthusiastically. Whereas the "proper" restaurants, anecdotally not so much.
Like it or not McDonalds are a restaurant.
What snobbish people who don't like McDonalds want is neither here nor there, it is for the customers to decide where they want to eat.
I'm not making any judgement about McDonalds at all, you're not reading what i'm writing. It makes absolutely no difference to McDonalds whether people purchase their food and take it away or sit down and eat it in store. They don't charge any different for their in store food as takeaway. People eating in don't (in general) tend to go back for seconds, or bring in extra money through alcohol purchases or whatever. Eating in is an option they offer to the customer. But to the ambivalent customer it doesn't make them more money to have the option.
To that end a scheme which was specifically designed to encourage sit down eating cannot have been primarily targeted at them. Clearly it helps them, and they are enthusiastically embracing it but i doubt their survival was unambiguously at risk.
Mid price sIt down restaurants not offering takeaway options on the other hand - if it works it helps them a great deal. Not just to make money, but even to survive.
The pub had about 80+ diners there at 2pm, and another 80+ at 4pm (1:45 hour slots max). A lot of interest. And probably double the staff that it would have been otherwise.
I'm wondering if this thing is going to completely pay for itself - the Govt pay about 1/4-1/3 of the bill, but save on the furlough costs, get the income tax, get the VAT, all the revenue from the supply chain.
Has anyone run the numbers?
And we all get the sanity benefits, and the impetus to get out of the door which is fine in 90%+ of the country.
Interesting point Matt. Possible, very possible. Indeed quite probable if it saves businesses from collapse.
Also there is no discount on alcohol. Government gets full duty paid and VAT on alcohol.
Remember that VAT on alcohol is reduced to 5% for 6 months from 15 July 2020.
Looks like Georgia's second wave is going to have a lower peak than it's first. It's daily positive tests has peaked and is heading downwards sicne the 10th July and deaths have levelled off and soon to fall.
Anyone any idea about how lockdowney it has got this time around?
I would guess it's similar to Arizona, where dense urban areas have largely shut down again, while in the outer suburbs and smaller towns, it's pretty open.
The pub had about 80+ diners there at 2pm, and another 80+ at 4pm (1:45 hour slots max). A lot of interest. And probably double the staff that it would have been otherwise.
I'm wondering if this thing is going to completely pay for itself - the Govt pay about 1/4-1/3 of the bill, but save on the furlough costs, get the income tax, get the VAT, all the revenue from the supply chain.
Has anyone run the numbers?
And we all get the sanity benefits, and the impetus to get out of the door which is fine in 90%+ of the country.
Interesting point Matt. Possible, very possible. Indeed quite probable if it saves businesses from collapse.
Also there is no discount on alcohol. Government gets full duty paid and VAT on alcohol.
Remember that VAT on alcohol is reduced to 5% for 6 months from 15 July 2020.
I don't understand why it matters if you eat in or not. Surely if its intended aim is to support the industry, it should apply either way.
The aim is more to persuade people it is safe to sit and eat a restaurant or cafe meal again imho.
Indeed, people have been getting takeaways and deliveries throughout. That's not the point of this scheme.
But I think its somewhat inevitable some customers would abuse it. I'm not sure how much its on the restaurant to police their customers.
I thought perhaps it was aimed more at the sit down restaurants that didn't do takeaways. Not specifically to encourage people to have a sit down MaccieD's instead of a takeaway. It's just the way it was framed it wasn't possible to distinguish so those that did both have benefitted.
How could you frame it otherwise?
A great many restaurants that never previously did takeaways have started to do so in recent months to try and keep at least some cash in the tills - while many more have for years done takeaways as a side interest in order to get extra cash even if its not the main element of the business. And a few more restaurants in recent years have turned to things like Uber Eats in order to get more revenue, while again remaining properly restaurants and not takeaways.
Other than demanding that people sit at a table I'm not sure how much more could be done to distinguish the two?
I wasn't saying they could. Just pointing out that the primary aim was to support restaurants that couldn't survive as a takeaway option (if it was even an option). It wasn't to encourage sit down dining at McDonalds. So the Government really don't care that much about abuse of the rules for the latter. The issue might be more that the likes of KfC and McDonalds (not the intended beneficiaries) have embraced it enthusiastically. Whereas the "proper" restaurants, anecdotally not so much.
Like it or not McDonalds are a restaurant.
What snobbish people who don't like McDonalds want is neither here nor there, it is for the customers to decide where they want to eat.
I'm not making any judgement about McDonalds at all, you're not reading what i'm writing. It makes absolutely no difference to McDonalds whether people purchase their food and take it away or sit down and eat it in store. To that end a scheme which was specifically designed to encourage sit down eating cannot have been primarily targeted at them. Clearly it helps them, and they are enthusiastically embracing it but i doubt their survival was unambiguously at risk.
Mid price sIt down restaurants not offering takeaway options on the other hand - if it works it helps them a great deal. Not just to make money, but even to survive.
It probably actually makes a very big difference to McDonalds - and their staff - the volume of trade they are doing. It makes no difference if an individual customer is takeaway or eat in, but without customers dining in their restaurants I doubt they've been doing anything like the volume of trade they normally would.
Their survival specifically may not have been in doubt, but the survival of many other chains has been. How many restaurant chains have gone bust this year? How many more are at risk?
If the government is going to get involved it should do so as simply as possible. The more you complicate it the more independent businesses will struggle to register to sign up while large chains won't struggle to navigate the extraneous layers of bureaucracy.
I don't understand why it matters if you eat in or not. Surely if its intended aim is to support the industry, it should apply either way.
The aim is more to persuade people it is safe to sit and eat a restaurant or cafe meal again imho.
Indeed, people have been getting takeaways and deliveries throughout. That's not the point of this scheme.
But I think its somewhat inevitable some customers would abuse it. I'm not sure how much its on the restaurant to police their customers.
I thought perhaps it was aimed more at the sit down restaurants that didn't do takeaways. Not specifically to encourage people to have a sit down MaccieD's instead of a takeaway. It's just the way it was framed it wasn't possible to distinguish so those that did both have benefitted.
How could you frame it otherwise?
A great many restaurants that never previously did takeaways have started to do so in recent months to try and keep at least some cash in the tills - while many more have for years done takeaways as a side interest in order to get extra cash even if its not the main element of the business. And a few more restaurants in recent years have turned to things like Uber Eats in order to get more revenue, while again remaining properly restaurants and not takeaways.
Other than demanding that people sit at a table I'm not sure how much more could be done to distinguish the two?
I wasn't saying they could. Just pointing out that the primary aim was to support restaurants that couldn't survive as a takeaway option (if it was even an option). It wasn't to encourage sit down dining at McDonalds. So the Government really don't care that much about abuse of the rules for the latter. The issue might be more that the likes of KfC and McDonalds (not the intended beneficiaries) have embraced it enthusiastically. Whereas the "proper" restaurants, anecdotally not so much.
Like it or not McDonalds are a restaurant.
What snobbish people who don't like McDonalds want is neither here nor there, it is for the customers to decide where they want to eat.
I'm not making any judgement about McDonalds at all, you're not reading what i'm writing. It makes absolutely no difference to McDonalds whether people purchase their food and take it away or sit down and eat it in store. They don't charge any different for their in store food as takeaway. People eating in don't (in general) tend to go back for seconds, or bring in extra money through alcohol purchases or whatever. Eating in is an option they offer to the customer. But to the ambivalent customer it doesn't make them more money to have the option.
To that end a scheme which was specifically designed to encourage sit down eating cannot have been primarily targeted at them. Clearly it helps them, and they are enthusiastically embracing it but i doubt their survival was unambiguously at risk.
Mid price sIt down restaurants not offering takeaway options on the other hand - if it works it helps them a great deal. Not just to make money, but even to survive.
It's also worth remembering that a lot of of McDonalds and similar are locally owned franchised - 1100 out of 1300 in the UK.
Not really understanding what Joe Johnson did wrong. He disagreed with his brother about Brexit, resigned and then decided to get off the stage given his brother was PM. Seems both reasonable and honourable to me.
As for Ms Fox, she clearly takes libertarian principles too far (or at least did when she was younger). She’s wrong but hypocrisy, nepotism and cronyism? Not really seeing it.
In UK virus news, just been looking at the by specimen date new case data, there looks to be a small plateau in new cases when looking at complete or near complete data, hopefully within the next few days we'll know whether Robert's prediction of cases quadrupling within two weeks.
Claire Fox hasn't been ennobled as a Tory has she? I thought she was going to the Lords as a crossbencher?
Not every appointment to the Lords is a Tory.
I despise Fox and think she should be nowhere near the Lords but since she's not going as a Tory who did choose her to go there?
Why do you despise her?
When I was eleven years old the IRA bombed my hometown. They murdered a 12 year old boy and a three year old boy from my town who were out shopping for Mother's Day.
Claire Fox in the days afterwards defending that bombing. She has never apologised for doing so.
That's quite enough on its own for me.
Yes, am surprised the Queen let her through.
I do wonder why, of all the possible former Brexit Party MEPs, why she was chosen. Some like Farage may still have electoral ambitions (though sending him to the Lords might next that nicely!), others may have unsavoury links, but could they be worse than Fox?
My hunch is that Cummings decided it. He loathes most of the other Brexiteers, but I get the feeling that he likes the Spiked former Revolutionary Communists. Their Leninist clique seizing power appeals to him.
Why was there any need for a Brexit person at all? Douglas Carswell would have been a better choice not some unrepentant violence approving Communist who sided with Serbian fascists in order to epater Western elites. It is so bloody adolescent and frivolous on top of everything else. Don’t we have any self-respect left, for God’s sake! Isn’t that what Brexit - at its best - was meant to be about, at some level? Not a plaything for those playing at revolutionary politics while others get hurt?
Grrrrrr 😡
I think that part of the point. Appointing some urbane, soft spoken Brexiteer wouldn't irritate enough. He wanted an abrasive, northern loudmouth for that purpose.
Not really understanding what Joe Johnson did wrong. He disagreed with his brother about Brexit, resigned and then decided to get off the stage given his brother was PM. Seems both reasonable and honourable to me.
As for Ms Fox, she clearly takes libertarian principles too far (or at least did when she was younger). She’s wrong but hypocrisy, nepotism and cronyism? Not really seeing it.
Justifying the murder of children is more than just "going too far".
I don't understand why it matters if you eat in or not. Surely if its intended aim is to support the industry, it should apply either way.
The aim is more to persuade people it is safe to sit and eat a restaurant or cafe meal again imho.
Indeed, people have been getting takeaways and deliveries throughout. That's not the point of this scheme.
But I think its somewhat inevitable some customers would abuse it. I'm not sure how much its on the restaurant to police their customers.
I thought perhaps it was aimed more at the sit down restaurants that didn't do takeaways. Not specifically to encourage people to have a sit down MaccieD's instead of a takeaway. It's just the way it was framed it wasn't possible to distinguish so those that did both have benefitted.
How could you frame it otherwise?
A great many restaurants that never previously did takeaways have started to do so in recent months to try and keep at least some cash in the tills - while many more have for years done takeaways as a side interest in order to get extra cash even if its not the main element of the business. And a few more restaurants in recent years have turned to things like Uber Eats in order to get more revenue, while again remaining properly restaurants and not takeaways.
Other than demanding that people sit at a table I'm not sure how much more could be done to distinguish the two?
I wasn't saying they could. Just pointing out that the primary aim was to support restaurants that couldn't survive as a takeaway option (if it was even an option). It wasn't to encourage sit down dining at McDonalds. So the Government really don't care that much about abuse of the rules for the latter. The issue might be more that the likes of KfC and McDonalds (not the intended beneficiaries) have embraced it enthusiastically. Whereas the "proper" restaurants, anecdotally not so much.
Like it or not McDonalds are a restaurant.
What snobbish people who don't like McDonalds want is neither here nor there, it is for the customers to decide where they want to eat.
I'm not making any judgement about McDonalds at all, you're not reading what i'm writing. It makes absolutely no difference to McDonalds whether people purchase their food and take it away or sit down and eat it in store. To that end a scheme which was specifically designed to encourage sit down eating cannot have been primarily targeted at them. Clearly it helps them, and they are enthusiastically embracing it but i doubt their survival was unambiguously at risk.
Mid price sIt down restaurants not offering takeaway options on the other hand - if it works it helps them a great deal. Not just to make money, but even to survive.
It probably actually makes a very big difference to McDonalds - and their staff - the volume of trade they are doing. It makes no difference if an individual customer is takeaway or eat in, but without customers dining in their restaurants I doubt they've been doing anything like the volume of trade they normally would.
Their survival specifically may not have been in doubt, but the survival of many other chains has been. How many restaurant chains have gone bust this year? How many more are at risk?
If the government is going to get involved it should do so as simply as possible. The more you complicate it the more independent businesses will struggle to register to sign up while large chains won't struggle to navigate the extraneous layers of bureaucracy.
Again, and it's my final word on this, at no point have i argued for anything other than simplicity - it is your misinterpretation that has suggested it.
I said that they might have not been the primary target of the scheme. I said that they have taken advantage of the simple way the scheme was put together which possibly cast the net far wider than a more complicated and targeted scheme might have done (if even possible).
But so what? Simplicity is often a good thing. It reduces administrative costs, and delivers compensatory savings for the additional direct costs as a result. It doesn't require a judgement on customers and benefits those who eat their (non domestic) food as cheaply as possible or might have slightly more money and/or expensive tastes equally.
Looks like Georgia's second wave is going to have a lower peak than it's first. It's daily positive tests has peaked and is heading downwards sicne the 10th July and deaths have levelled off and soon to fall.
Anyone any idea about how lockdowney it has got this time around?
As an aside, in terms of case numbers, Georgia's second peak was way larger (like 5x bigger) than the first.
Looks like Georgia's second wave is going to have a lower peak than it's first. It's daily positive tests has peaked and is heading downwards sicne the 10th July and deaths have levelled off and soon to fall.
Anyone any idea about how lockdowney it has got this time around?
As an aside, in terms of case numbers, Georgia's second peak was way larger (like 5x bigger) than the first.
Confirmed case numbers. Or is that the point that you are making? That some of the supposed "second waves" going on in Europe at the moment likely need to be showing many fold greater cases before we can be thinking about the outcomes being equivalent in seriousness.
Not really understanding what Joe Johnson did wrong. He disagreed with his brother about Brexit, resigned and then decided to get off the stage given his brother was PM. Seems both reasonable and honourable to me.
As for Ms Fox, she clearly takes libertarian principles too far (or at least did when she was younger). She’s wrong but hypocrisy, nepotism and cronyism? Not really seeing it.
Justifying the murder of children is more than just "going too far".
Not really understanding what Joe Johnson did wrong. He disagreed with his brother about Brexit, resigned and then decided to get off the stage given his brother was PM. Seems both reasonable and honourable to me.
As for Ms Fox, she clearly takes libertarian principles too far (or at least did when she was younger). She’s wrong but hypocrisy, nepotism and cronyism? Not really seeing it.
Jo Johnson has not done anything wrong. But he has not done anything justifying elevation to the peerage either. He’s only there because of who his brother is. That is nepotism.
Fox is not a libertarian. She has behaved exactly like Corbyn. Just as he has allowed his anti-Western feelings to put him on the side of some very nasty regimes so has she allowed herself to side with Serbian fascist genocidal killers as part of criticising Western humanitarian intervention and, in doing so, has gone so far as to claim that massacres and killings did not happen. Always easier to justify support for evil people if you can claim that the evil did not happen. This is or should be beyond the pale. It is a total lack of any moral principles whatsoever.
And, as @Philip_Thompson has rightly pointed out, IRA violence does not make you a libertarian. Her elevation is an offensive 2 fingers to all the victims of IRA violence.
She is also against having the House of Lords so if she was as principled as she likes to claim she simply should not be accepting such an offer.
Claire Fox hasn't been ennobled as a Tory has she? I thought she was going to the Lords as a crossbencher?
Not every appointment to the Lords is a Tory.
I despise Fox and think she should be nowhere near the Lords but since she's not going as a Tory who did choose her to go there?
Why do you despise her?
When I was eleven years old the IRA bombed my hometown. They murdered a 12 year old boy and a three year old boy from my town who were out shopping for Mother's Day.
Claire Fox in the days afterwards defending that bombing. She has never apologised for doing so.
That's quite enough on its own for me.
Yes, am surprised the Queen let her through.
I do wonder why, of all the possible former Brexit Party MEPs, why she was chosen. Some like Farage may still have electoral ambitions (though sending him to the Lords might next that nicely!), others may have unsavoury links, but could they be worse than Fox?
My hunch is that Cummings decided it. He loathes most of the other Brexiteers, but I get the feeling that he likes the Spiked former Revolutionary Communists. Their Leninist clique seizing power appeals to him.
Why was there any need for a Brexit person at all? Douglas Carswell would have been a better choice not some unrepentant violence approving Communist who sided with Serbian fascists in order to epater Western elites. It is so bloody adolescent and frivolous on top of everything else. Don’t we have any self-respect left, for God’s sake! Isn’t that what Brexit - at its best - was meant to be about, at some level? Not a plaything for those playing at revolutionary politics while others get hurt?
Grrrrrr 😡
I think that part of the point. Appointing some urbane, soft spoken Brexiteer wouldn't irritate enough. He wanted an abrasive, northern loudmouth for that purpose.
Not really understanding what Joe Johnson did wrong. He disagreed with his brother about Brexit, resigned and then decided to get off the stage given his brother was PM. Seems both reasonable and honourable to me.
As for Ms Fox, she clearly takes libertarian principles too far (or at least did when she was younger). She’s wrong but hypocrisy, nepotism and cronyism? Not really seeing it.
Justifying the murder of children is more than just "going too far".
On the positive side, Beirut is within easy flying distance of multiple sources of aid. From that point of view, it shouldn't be hard to fly in supplies in bulk.
However, this is a region where multiple states and pseudo-states are involved in vicious proxy wars. The physical logistics of flying in aid are probably straightforward, but the geopolitics isn't.
Not really understanding what Joe Johnson did wrong. He disagreed with his brother about Brexit, resigned and then decided to get off the stage given his brother was PM. Seems both reasonable and honourable to me.
As for Ms Fox, she clearly takes libertarian principles too far (or at least did when she was younger). She’s wrong but hypocrisy, nepotism and cronyism? Not really seeing it.
Foxy and Ruthie, what a duo fighting to bring democracy to the House of Lords. It'll be the most democratic un-elected house of parliament in the world afore we know it.
Not really understanding what Joe Johnson did wrong. He disagreed with his brother about Brexit, resigned and then decided to get off the stage given his brother was PM. Seems both reasonable and honourable to me.
As for Ms Fox, she clearly takes libertarian principles too far (or at least did when she was younger). She’s wrong but hypocrisy, nepotism and cronyism? Not really seeing it.
Foxy and Ruthie, what a duo fighting to bring democracy to the House of Lords. It'll be the most democratic un-elected house of parliament in the world afore we know it.
On the positive side, Beirut is within easy flying distance of multiple sources of aid. From that point of view, it shouldn't be hard to fly in supplies in bulk.
However, this is a region where multiple states and pseudo-states are involved in vicious proxy wars. The physical logistics of flying in aid are probably straightforward, but the geopolitics isn't.
One thing that Corbyn and Fox have in common is they both very publicly supported the IRA not just in theory but even within days after atrocities, when even the IRAs erstwhile supporters were keeping quiet. Its one thing standing up for 'freedom fighters' in abstract - but to do so days after an atrocity while people are still mourning . . .
In the days after the Warrington bombings even IRA supporters were distancing themselves from such evil - but not Fox and her allies. Nor has she ever apologised for that.
She is every bit as contemptible as Corbyn. Utterly beyond the pale
'There is one thing to be grateful for. We need never again be troubled by Tories railing about Labour’s attitude to terrorist violence or child abuse or fondness for unelected elites or being too pro-Russian or having dodgy friends or being run by cronies.'
Well, no it doesn't change any of that at all and they are facts about some on the left. They shouldn't be allowed to get away with it without being challenged. The idea that one somehow zero sums the other lacks fucking plain good sense...which funnily enough is the left's major issue and why I couldn't vote for many of them even if you paid me. They use morality as a cover for their own lack of it.
On another note, poor old Beirut. The economic effect of what happened today on top of a country already in the tank is going to go on for years.The estimate of explosive power is the equivalent of 240 tons of TNT
They will be lucky if the final death toll isn't 1000+.
Not really understanding what Joe Johnson did wrong. He disagreed with his brother about Brexit, resigned and then decided to get off the stage given his brother was PM. Seems both reasonable and honourable to me.
As for Ms Fox, she clearly takes libertarian principles too far (or at least did when she was younger). She’s wrong but hypocrisy, nepotism and cronyism? Not really seeing it.
Foxy and Ruthie, what a duo fighting to bring democracy to the House of Lords. It'll be the most democratic un-elected house of parliament in the world afore we know it.
Rumours of my enoblement are greatly exaggerated.
I'm confident that you wouldn't want to belong to any club that would have the other Fox as a member.
Anecdotal report from the "Eat Out to Help Out" front line. Man goes into KFC and orders a bargain bucket, 20 wings and 6 mini-burgers along with 8 regular fries. Counter staff remind him he has to sit in and eat to get the 50% off.
Man says he will, gets his order, collects the 50% off and sits down at a corner table. He eats a wing then produces a bag, puts all the rest of the food in the bag and leaves.
KFC are now serving all meals open on a tray to prevent that trick.
McDonalds are still offering the food in bags so people are over-ordering, claiming they will eat in, pocketing the discount and then leaving.
Do the shops actually care? Surely it's the best of all worlds...
Stimulated economic activity AND less risk of spreading COVID!
Anecdotal report from the "Eat Out to Help Out" front line. Man goes into KFC and orders a bargain bucket, 20 wings and 6 mini-burgers along with 8 regular fries. Counter staff remind him he has to sit in and eat to get the 50% off.
Man says he will, gets his order, collects the 50% off and sits down at a corner table. He eats a wing then produces a bag, puts all the rest of the food in the bag and leaves.
KFC are now serving all meals open on a tray to prevent that trick.
McDonalds are still offering the food in bags so people are over-ordering, claiming they will eat in, pocketing the discount and then leaving.
Do the shops actually care? Surely it's the best of all worlds...
Stimulated economic activity AND less risk of spreading COVID!
In which case why was it restricted to eat in?
The idea is to get people back into restaurants. Deliveries, takeaways etc were already trading.
Not really understanding what Joe Johnson did wrong. He disagreed with his brother about Brexit, resigned and then decided to get off the stage given his brother was PM. Seems both reasonable and honourable to me.
As for Ms Fox, she clearly takes libertarian principles too far (or at least did when she was younger). She’s wrong but hypocrisy, nepotism and cronyism? Not really seeing it.
Foxy and Ruthie, what a duo fighting to bring democracy to the House of Lords. It'll be the most democratic un-elected house of parliament in the world afore we know it.
Not really understanding what Joe Johnson did wrong. He disagreed with his brother about Brexit, resigned and then decided to get off the stage given his brother was PM. Seems both reasonable and honourable to me.
As for Ms Fox, she clearly takes libertarian principles too far (or at least did when she was younger). She’s wrong but hypocrisy, nepotism and cronyism? Not really seeing it.
Foxy and Ruthie, what a duo fighting to bring democracy to the House of Lords. It'll be the most democratic un-elected house of parliament in the world afore we know it.
Rumours of my enoblement are greatly exaggerated.
I'm confident that you wouldn't want to belong to any club that would have the other Fox as a member.
I don't get out of bed for less than £300 a day, but I hear the catering is good.
'There is one thing to be grateful for. We need never again be troubled by Tories railing about Labour’s attitude to terrorist violence or child abuse or fondness for unelected elites or being too pro-Russian or having dodgy friends or being run by cronies.'
Well, no it doesn't change any of that at all and they are facts about some on the left. They shouldn't be allowed to get away with it without being challenged.p
Oh they’ll get challenged by me while I still have breath in my body.
But the Tories won’t be able to, not without people like me pointing out their sheer brass nerve and hypocrisy.
I don’t always agree with @Philip_Thompson but on this he has been on the button. Decent Tories should be disgusted by a Tory government elevating such a person.
Not really understanding what Joe Johnson did wrong. He disagreed with his brother about Brexit, resigned and then decided to get off the stage given his brother was PM. Seems both reasonable and honourable to me.
As for Ms Fox, she clearly takes libertarian principles too far (or at least did when she was younger). She’s wrong but hypocrisy, nepotism and cronyism? Not really seeing it.
Foxy and Ruthie, what a duo fighting to bring democracy to the House of Lords. It'll be the most democratic un-elected house of parliament in the world afore we know it.
Not really understanding what Joe Johnson did wrong. He disagreed with his brother about Brexit, resigned and then decided to get off the stage given his brother was PM. Seems both reasonable and honourable to me.
As for Ms Fox, she clearly takes libertarian principles too far (or at least did when she was younger). She’s wrong but hypocrisy, nepotism and cronyism? Not really seeing it.
Foxy and Ruthie, what a duo fighting to bring democracy to the House of Lords. It'll be the most democratic un-elected house of parliament in the world afore we know it.
Not really understanding what Joe Johnson did wrong. He disagreed with his brother about Brexit, resigned and then decided to get off the stage given his brother was PM. Seems both reasonable and honourable to me.
As for Ms Fox, she clearly takes libertarian principles too far (or at least did when she was younger). She’s wrong but hypocrisy, nepotism and cronyism? Not really seeing it.
Foxy and Ruthie, what a duo fighting to bring democracy to the House of Lords. It'll be the most democratic un-elected house of parliament in the world afore we know it.
Rumours of my enoblement are greatly exaggerated.
I'm confident that you wouldn't want to belong to any club that would have the other Fox as a member.
I don't get out of bed for less than £300 a day, but I hear the catering is good.
Before I go to bed I should say that I was once taken to lunch at the Lords by one of its genuinely eminent members. And the catering is indeed excellent.
I think the point made elsewhere about why some people got gongs and peerages when they are not particularly useful and it would just cause issues is a strong one in this debate. Moral high ground can be easy to hold. In the case of Fox, what is she bringing to the table?
I do though think the point about Jo Johnson doesn't really fit with the other complaints. As the description of him shows he is not simply an example of cronyism since he didn't simply do what his brother wanted, so the nepotism is not as huge a deal as it is made out to be. The 'However worthy, it's not exactly a lifetime of public service' line I find to be rather odd. If he's worthy, then does it matter it was not a lifetime? If not worthy, a lifetime of service would not make it ok, and in any case it's not merely a place for people with a lifetime of service.
I read that as ‘however worthy/praiseworthy in itself, it isn’t a lifetime of public service.’
Yes, but that's my point too - the Lords is not simply a reward for a lifetime of public service, it can also be somewhere where people are still contributing to public service and not some kind of pension.
I'm not saying he was the greatest of options to contribute as a member of the Lords, but I think the family connection while of course reason for it not in itself proof it is a bad thing because he is not so much of a yes man that he would fail to resign from his own brother's government, and the suggestion he should have had a lifetime of service before getting such a role I find to be extremely dumb.
So why was he picked ahead of say, Amber Rudd or David Gauke, both of whom have far more distinguished careers of public service, resigned for the same reasons and have far more to contribute to public life?
Perhaps you didn't see where I wrote 'the family connection while of course reason for it'? I don't think that automatically disqualifies someone, but I wasn't saying it was a good appointment, but that doesn't mean a really stupid objection should be used to object to it like suggesting anyone appointed should have had a lifetime's worth of service, unless we want to see nothing but 80 year olds in there.
You don't make a good argument stronger by including weak arguments with it, that;s why the lifetime service part was stupid.
Not really understanding what Joe Johnson did wrong. He disagreed with his brother about Brexit, resigned and then decided to get off the stage given his brother was PM. Seems both reasonable and honourable to me.
As for Ms Fox, she clearly takes libertarian principles too far (or at least did when she was younger). She’s wrong but hypocrisy, nepotism and cronyism? Not really seeing it.
Foxy and Ruthie, what a duo fighting to bring democracy to the House of Lords. It'll be the most democratic un-elected house of parliament in the world afore we know it.
Not really understanding what Joe Johnson did wrong. He disagreed with his brother about Brexit, resigned and then decided to get off the stage given his brother was PM. Seems both reasonable and honourable to me.
As for Ms Fox, she clearly takes libertarian principles too far (or at least did when she was younger). She’s wrong but hypocrisy, nepotism and cronyism? Not really seeing it.
Foxy and Ruthie, what a duo fighting to bring democracy to the House of Lords. It'll be the most democratic un-elected house of parliament in the world afore we know it.
Rumours of my enoblement are greatly exaggerated.
I'm confident that you wouldn't want to belong to any club that would have the other Fox as a member.
I don't get out of bed for less than £300 a day, but I hear the catering is good.
Before I go to bed I should say that I was once taken to lunch at the Lords by one of its genuinely eminent members. And the catering is indeed excellent.
I can imagine that lunch at Lords would be good. Personally I've been to Old Trafford, Trent Bridge and the MCG but never to Lords.
Not really understanding what Joe Johnson did wrong. He disagreed with his brother about Brexit, resigned and then decided to get off the stage given his brother was PM. Seems both reasonable and honourable to me.
As for Ms Fox, she clearly takes libertarian principles too far (or at least did when she was younger). She’s wrong but hypocrisy, nepotism and cronyism? Not really seeing it.
Foxy and Ruthie, what a duo fighting to bring democracy to the House of Lords. It'll be the most democratic un-elected house of parliament in the world afore we know it.
Speaking of weak arguments. It's a bizarre attitude. Either we think the principle of an unelected, and undemocratic, chamber is ok or we don't. If we don't think it is ok then there's a pretty easy fix rather than trying to make appointments seem democratic on the basis that some of the appointees would support an elected solution. It isn't the Lords that needs convincing of that.
Anecdotal report from the "Eat Out to Help Out" front line. Man goes into KFC and orders a bargain bucket, 20 wings and 6 mini-burgers along with 8 regular fries. Counter staff remind him he has to sit in and eat to get the 50% off.
Man says he will, gets his order, collects the 50% off and sits down at a corner table. He eats a wing then produces a bag, puts all the rest of the food in the bag and leaves.
KFC are now serving all meals open on a tray to prevent that trick.
McDonalds are still offering the food in bags so people are over-ordering, claiming they will eat in, pocketing the discount and then leaving.
Do the shops actually care? Surely it's the best of all worlds...
Stimulated economic activity AND less risk of spreading COVID!
In which case why was it restricted to eat in?
The idea is to get people back into restaurants. Deliveries, takeaways etc were already trading.
But. The only fast food I ever eat is a city centre KFC. There literally is almost no seating area. Around 8 seats around a shelf at the side. And really no resident population to order out. Certainly very few who won't have a closer one. How does this help them and those like them? Just because takeaways were trading doesn't mean they were thriving.
Anecdotal report from the "Eat Out to Help Out" front line. Man goes into KFC and orders a bargain bucket, 20 wings and 6 mini-burgers along with 8 regular fries. Counter staff remind him he has to sit in and eat to get the 50% off.
Man says he will, gets his order, collects the 50% off and sits down at a corner table. He eats a wing then produces a bag, puts all the rest of the food in the bag and leaves.
KFC are now serving all meals open on a tray to prevent that trick.
McDonalds are still offering the food in bags so people are over-ordering, claiming they will eat in, pocketing the discount and then leaving.
Do the shops actually care? Surely it's the best of all worlds...
Stimulated economic activity AND less risk of spreading COVID!
In which case why was it restricted to eat in?
The idea is to get people back into restaurants. Deliveries, takeaways etc were already trading.
But. The only fast food I ever eat is a city centre KFC. There literally is almost no seating area. Around 8 seats around a shelf at the side. And really no resident population to order out. Certainly very few who won't have a closer one. How does this help them and those like them? Just because takeaways were trading doesn't mean they were thriving.
True, but then many possibly were thriving. I'd be curious how the likes of Domino's have done during the pandemic - I suspect they're a company that really don't need help.
Takeaways have been permitted for longer than eating in, especially if companies could deliver, I suspect eat in is where the biggest damage has been seen.
Not really understanding what Joe Johnson did wrong. He disagreed with his brother about Brexit, resigned and then decided to get off the stage given his brother was PM. Seems both reasonable and honourable to me.
Personally I'd be in favour of a rule where former MPs cannot be made Lords until, say, 5 years have elapsed since they were in the Commons. I don't like the Lords being treated as a retirement benefit or reward for those who've lost their seats. And the passage of time would allow for those former MPs to hopefully show if they still have something worthwhile to contribute beyond party loyalty. Possibly there could be a rule of no more than a certain proportion of former MPs in the Lords at any one time as well, so that it is not too many party hacks.
But I would agree the lumping in of Jo Johnson makes little sense given he clearly isn't a pushover even for family, and enough said about the idea you'd have a lifetime of service to get in the Lords.
The second wave is crashing through Spain at the moment. I really think the government needs to rethink the idea of quarantine and replace it with flight bans. Right now British people are going to Spain, coming back infected and then not doing the quarantine because no one is enforcing it.
I should think our second wave is in a couple of weeks?
I feel insulted by the idea that many of us aren't really working if we're working from home.
I've been working flat out since March on a major project, I'm doing more work than I did in the office and more important work too. I know a lot of people have been furloughed but a lot of us have been hard at work too.
Not really understanding what Joe Johnson did wrong. He disagreed with his brother about Brexit, resigned and then decided to get off the stage given his brother was PM. Seems both reasonable and honourable to me.
As for Ms Fox, she clearly takes libertarian principles too far (or at least did when she was younger). She’s wrong but hypocrisy, nepotism and cronyism? Not really seeing it.
Foxy and Ruthie, what a duo fighting to bring democracy to the House of Lords. It'll be the most democratic un-elected house of parliament in the world afore we know it.
Not really understanding what Joe Johnson did wrong. He disagreed with his brother about Brexit, resigned and then decided to get off the stage given his brother was PM. Seems both reasonable and honourable to me.
As for Ms Fox, she clearly takes libertarian principles too far (or at least did when she was younger). She’s wrong but hypocrisy, nepotism and cronyism? Not really seeing it.
Foxy and Ruthie, what a duo fighting to bring democracy to the House of Lords. It'll be the most democratic un-elected house of parliament in the world afore we know it.
Rumours of my enoblement are greatly exaggerated.
I'm confident that you wouldn't want to belong to any club that would have the other Fox as a member.
I don't get out of bed for less than £300 a day, but I hear the catering is good.
Before I go to bed I should say that I was once taken to lunch at the Lords by one of its genuinely eminent members. And the catering is indeed excellent.
I can imagine that lunch at Lords would be good. Personally I've been to Old Trafford, Trent Bridge and the MCG but never to Lords.
Chester-le-street is pretty damn fine. However, they don't serve at tea for County Championship. You've got a mile and a half to a chicken shop...
'There is one thing to be grateful for. We need never again be troubled by Tories railing about Labour’s attitude to terrorist violence or child abuse or fondness for unelected elites or being too pro-Russian or having dodgy friends or being run by cronies.'
Well, no it doesn't change any of that at all and they are facts about some on the left. They shouldn't be allowed to get away with it without being challenged.p
Oh they’ll get challenged by me while I still have breath in my body.
But the Tories won’t be able to, not without people like me pointing out their sheer brass nerve and hypocrisy.
I don’t always agree with @Philip_Thompson but on this he has been on the button. Decent Tories should be disgusted by a Tory government elevating such a person.
Your comment zero summed it, maybe not intentional but its a living fact that no party holds a high ground
Comments
Anecdotal report from the "Eat Out to Help Out" front line. Man goes into KFC and orders a bargain bucket, 20 wings and 6 mini-burgers along with 8 regular fries. Counter staff remind him he has to sit in and eat to get the 50% off.
Man says he will, gets his order, collects the 50% off and sits down at a corner table. He eats a wing then produces a bag, puts all the rest of the food in the bag and leaves.
KFC are now serving all meals open on a tray to prevent that trick.
McDonalds are still offering the food in bags so people are over-ordering, claiming they will eat in, pocketing the discount and then leaving.
I suppose storage is a greater issue...
Would require somebody to pull off a sensational bowling performance, and right now the seamers are bowling utter pies.
Stimulated economic activity AND less risk of spreading COVID!
She went apeshit and the police were called :-)
As for not spreading Covid - the people may not spend as long in the restaurant but they are still there and can still spread the virus.
There is one plane on flight tracker saying it’s on course to Beirut. Will be interesting to see if it lands there or diverts, presumably to Cyprus.
Your point about storage is a good one though, much of the storage capacity must have been destroyed or damaged.
Anyway, I am off to bed. Good night.
It's just like someone ordering food from a coffee shop saying they will take it out so it's at cheaper price and then sitting down after they get the food. The customer is ripping off HMRC not the outlet.
The destruction is immense
https://twitter.com/Natsecjeff/status/1290670996928831491
Okay - turning the question on its head - do you think it's right we should see this kind of fraud? The idea is for people to sit in restaurants and get used to eating out in company again - it's not presumably for people to get cheap food.
1 from 3 now. Ireland deserve this, England don't.
Biden up 39 in California - 67-28. That's in line with the 4-6% swing to Biden being recorded in other states.
The daily Rasmussen Presidential approval number back to level from +4 yesterday.
Credit where its due, you deserved that.
But I think its somewhat inevitable some customers would abuse it. I'm not sure how much its on the restaurant to police their customers.
A great many restaurants that never previously did takeaways have started to do so in recent months to try and keep at least some cash in the tills - while many more have for years done takeaways as a side interest in order to get extra cash even if its not the main element of the business. And a few more restaurants in recent years have turned to things like Uber Eats in order to get more revenue, while again remaining properly restaurants and not takeaways.
Other than demanding that people sit at a table I'm not sure how much more could be done to distinguish the two?
The pub had about 80+ diners there at 2pm, and another 80+ at 4pm (1:45 hour slots max). A lot of interest. And probably double the staff that it would have been otherwise.
I'm wondering if this thing is going to completely pay for itself - the Govt pay about 1/4-1/3 of the bill, but save on the furlough costs, get the income tax, get the VAT, all the revenue from the supply chain.
Has anyone run the numbers?
And we all get the sanity benefits, and the impetus to get out of the door which is fine in 90%+ of the country.
Plus I expect restaurants and pubs will need the extra cash to help tide over the winter.
Also there is no discount on alcohol. Government gets full duty paid and VAT on alcohol.
What snobbish people who don't like McDonalds want is neither here nor there, it is for the customers to decide where they want to eat.
Anyone any idea about how lockdowney it has got this time around?
That is nearly the same explosive power as the full load in the SS Richard Montgomery, which is still there from WW2 in the Thames Estuary.
To that end a scheme which was specifically designed to encourage sit down eating cannot have been primarily targeted at them. Clearly it helps them, and they are enthusiastically embracing it but i doubt their survival was unambiguously at risk.
Mid price sIt down restaurants not offering takeaway options on the other hand - if it works it helps them a great deal. Not just to make money, but even to survive.
Their survival specifically may not have been in doubt, but the survival of many other chains has been. How many restaurant chains have gone bust this year? How many more are at risk?
If the government is going to get involved it should do so as simply as possible. The more you complicate it the more independent businesses will struggle to register to sign up while large chains won't struggle to navigate the extraneous layers of bureaucracy.
So most of the money will stay local.
As for Ms Fox, she clearly takes libertarian principles too far (or at least did when she was younger). She’s wrong but hypocrisy, nepotism and cronyism? Not really seeing it.
I said that they might have not been the primary target of the scheme. I said that they have taken advantage of the simple way the scheme was put together which possibly cast the net far wider than a more complicated and targeted scheme might have done (if even possible).
But so what? Simplicity is often a good thing. It reduces administrative costs, and delivers compensatory savings for the additional direct costs as a result. It doesn't require a judgement on customers and benefits those who eat their (non domestic) food as cheaply as possible or might have slightly more money and/or expensive tastes equally.
Fox is not a libertarian. She has behaved exactly like Corbyn. Just as he has allowed his anti-Western feelings to put him on the side of some very nasty regimes so has she allowed herself to side with Serbian fascist genocidal killers as part of criticising Western humanitarian intervention and, in doing so, has gone so far as to claim that massacres and killings did not happen. Always easier to justify support for evil people if you can claim that the evil did not happen. This is or should be beyond the pale. It is a total lack of any moral principles whatsoever.
And, as @Philip_Thompson has rightly pointed out, IRA violence does not make you a libertarian. Her elevation is an offensive 2 fingers to all the victims of IRA violence.
She is also against having the House of Lords so if she was as principled as she likes to claim she simply should not be accepting such an offer.
No thanks.
She didn't even muster an apology.
https://twitter.com/tobiaschneider/status/1290716494528155648
On the positive side, Beirut is within easy flying distance of multiple sources of aid. From that point of view, it shouldn't be hard to fly in supplies in bulk.
However, this is a region where multiple states and pseudo-states are involved in vicious proxy wars. The physical logistics of flying in aid are probably straightforward, but the geopolitics isn't.
https://twitter.com/PhantomPower14/status/1290764932980637696?s=20
https://twitter.com/wefail/status/1290722240183640067?s=20
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_City_disaster?wprov=sfla1
The points of contrast, population density, the politics, will be even more important.
In the days after the Warrington bombings even IRA supporters were distancing themselves from such evil - but not Fox and her allies. Nor has she ever apologised for that.
She is every bit as contemptible as Corbyn. Utterly beyond the pale
Well, no it doesn't change any of that at all and they are facts about some on the left. They shouldn't be allowed to get away with it without being challenged. The idea that one somehow zero sums the other lacks fucking plain good sense...which funnily enough is the left's major issue and why I couldn't vote for many of them even if you paid me. They use morality as a cover for their own lack of it.
On another note, poor old Beirut. The economic effect of what happened today on top of a country already in the tank is going to go on for years.The estimate of explosive power is the equivalent of 240 tons of TNT
They will be lucky if the final death toll isn't 1000+.
But the Tories won’t be able to, not without people like me pointing out their sheer brass nerve and hypocrisy.
I don’t always agree with @Philip_Thompson but on this he has been on the button. Decent Tories should be disgusted by a Tory government elevating such a person.
You don't make a good argument stronger by including weak arguments with it, that;s why the lifetime service part was stupid.
How does this help them and those like them? Just because takeaways were trading doesn't mean they were thriving.
Takeaways have been permitted for longer than eating in, especially if companies could deliver, I suspect eat in is where the biggest damage has been seen.
But I would agree the lumping in of Jo Johnson makes little sense given he clearly isn't a pushover even for family, and enough said about the idea you'd have a lifetime of service to get in the Lords.
I feel insulted by the idea that many of us aren't really working if we're working from home.
I've been working flat out since March on a major project, I'm doing more work than I did in the office and more important work too. I know a lot of people have been furloughed but a lot of us have been hard at work too.
However, they don't serve at tea for County Championship. You've got a mile and a half to a chicken shop...