Not that strange considering what he's talking about and going on to speak about female Four Star Generals.
It's totally sexist. He's saying women are equal or better than men at all things, that there is literally nothing a man can do better than a woman.
It really isn't. He didn't say all women, or all men. His point, made with characteristic imprecision, is that for any given task women should be considered on their merits, as it's quite possibly that the women candidate will be the best.
There will be plenty more material from Biden for the PB pedants to get wound up over. It's the way he communicates. Why anyone is getting wound up about it is beyond me.
Unless the tweet isn't accurate, he said "there is no thing a man can do that a woman can't do as well or better", which implies the reverse is not true.
What is it about 'characteristic imprecision' that you don't get ?
DM notificaiton: 6 in 10 drinkers welcome no jab, no pint apparently.
They'll be massively skewed over 50, Tory core vote. It's going to happen.
So long as it's landlord's choice and not the law.
No jab, no staff, no pint.
It is an utterly stupid idea. My fear is that the government, having promised the lifting of restrictions, is going to keep on imposing them - regardless of whether they are workable and regardless of the economic consequences for those affected. They seem, frankly, to have it in for the hospitality sector and pubs/restaurants in particular.
Why no support for wet-led pubs, who have been abandoned? Why can't pubs sell takeaway alcohol while off-licences and other shops can? Why no support for breweries? Why, now, all this kite-flying about yet more restrictions?
If Daughter is allowed to open her place again (and the limited April opening is no good for her without the government allowing marquees to be classified as outside space, which they currently aren't) she will be welcoming customers with open arms not checking whether they've had jabs in them.
A pub/restaurant is a place of pleasure and relaxation not an out-patient's clinic.
That's your daughter's choice. That's why I said "so long as it's landlord's choice". Her choice. Her business, her choice, her decision.
Some people want to make the decision for her and say she can't check things even if she wants to do so. Some people want to make the decision for her and say she must check things (which is what Israel is doing).
I am saying it needs to be her decision. If its her decision it is not a restriction. It is a freedom for her to choose, however she decides.
My fear is that this kite-flying to make it a requirement eg if you don't ask you need to keep people 2 metres apart or some such bollocks. There is no need to say anything about this at all. Because all publicans now have the legal right to bar anyone they please.
So this feels to me like the precursor to some new restriction which will render pubs unviable, especially as that dishonest malicious fool Gove is in charge of it.
The government promised legal restrictions lifted after 21 June. So remove them. Not replace them with more bossy boots micro-managing.
That would be bollocks if it happens, but you seem to be arguing against something that's not been suggested. So long as restrictions are restricted by 21 June that's the end of the matter for that.
As for publicans having the right to refuse service, that is true but not unqualified. There's a reason publicans can't eg have a policy of "No blacks, no Irish". I'm not aware of any pub currently or previously checking for medical status and that is a personal matter that pubs may not be allowed to ask about unless they're permitted to ask about it.
Your daughter may want to welcome everyone, but a hypothetical wet led pub down the road might have an elderly, more vulnerable client base whose customers want them to ensure everyone who comes in is vaccinated. Why should that wet pub be refused the right to ask if that is what they want to do?
It should be personal choice for everyone.
As Cyclefree pointed out, it is. ...Because all publicans now have the legal right to bar anyone they please...
Except that's not as clear cut as that.
Yes a pub can refuse a troublemaker or refuse service for an individual if they want to do so, discriminating against groups based on characteristics is another matter.
A pub can't say "no blacks" because that would violate discrimination laws. A pub landlord can refuse to serve a black person if they have a reason to want to refuse service, they can't have a blanket policy of refusing all black people.
Why this might need explicit legislation, is age a protected characteristic ?
A ban on the unvaccinated is for a few months, age based discrimination.
Age is a protected characteristic. It would be indirect discrimination for a few months and landlords would have to show that it was a proportionate means of acheiving a legitimate aim if challenged upon it.
Looks like it'll be dodged by the err passports being "in development" and coming out only when jabs have been offered to everyone.
My feeling on this is Govt policy is to keep considering this until it isn't needed - appeasing the war isn't over lets stay in the Jungle types without losing the libertarians.
Interest-free government loans should be made available to help up to a million households buy electric cars over the next two years, the shadow business secretary, Ed Miliband, is to argue.
Focussing on the wrong thing, as ever. If government want to get a million electric cars on the road, what they should be investing in is electric vehicle infrastructure.
Not to mention a significant number of power stations to provide the necessary energy which right simply now isn't available and is unlikely to be so for the foreseeable future. A small detail I know, but one that needs to be tackled before petrol & diesel are withdrawn. Oh and btw, where are all those many billions of tax going to come from to replace the current excise duty on fossil fuels?
I think last time we discussed this it was said that taxing electricity by less than 1p per kWh would more than replace all fuel duty - and that's before we consider increased electricity consumption in the future.
Not that strange considering what he's talking about and going on to speak about female Four Star Generals.
It's totally sexist. He's saying women are equal or better than men at all things, that there is literally nothing a man can do better than a woman.
It really isn't. He didn't say all women, or all men. His point, made with characteristic imprecision, is that for any given task women should be considered on their merits, as it's quite possibly that the women candidate will be the best.
There will be plenty more material from Biden for the PB pedants to get wound up over. It's the way he communicates. Why anyone is getting wound up about it is beyond me.
Unless the tweet isn't accurate, he said "there is no thing a man can do that a woman can't do as well or better", which implies the reverse is not true.
What is it about 'characteristic imprecision' that you don't get ?
DM notificaiton: 6 in 10 drinkers welcome no jab, no pint apparently.
They'll be massively skewed over 50, Tory core vote. It's going to happen.
So long as it's landlord's choice and not the law.
No jab, no staff, no pint.
It is an utterly stupid idea. My fear is that the government, having promised the lifting of restrictions, is going to keep on imposing them - regardless of whether they are workable and regardless of the economic consequences for those affected. They seem, frankly, to have it in for the hospitality sector and pubs/restaurants in particular.
Why no support for wet-led pubs, who have been abandoned? Why can't pubs sell takeaway alcohol while off-licences and other shops can? Why no support for breweries? Why, now, all this kite-flying about yet more restrictions?
If Daughter is allowed to open her place again (and the limited April opening is no good for her without the government allowing marquees to be classified as outside space, which they currently aren't) she will be welcoming customers with open arms not checking whether they've had jabs in them.
A pub/restaurant is a place of pleasure and relaxation not an out-patient's clinic.
That's your daughter's choice. That's why I said "so long as it's landlord's choice". Her choice. Her business, her choice, her decision.
Some people want to make the decision for her and say she can't check things even if she wants to do so. Some people want to make the decision for her and say she must check things (which is what Israel is doing).
I am saying it needs to be her decision. If its her decision it is not a restriction. It is a freedom for her to choose, however she decides.
My fear is that this kite-flying to make it a requirement eg if you don't ask you need to keep people 2 metres apart or some such bollocks. There is no need to say anything about this at all. Because all publicans now have the legal right to bar anyone they please.
So this feels to me like the precursor to some new restriction which will render pubs unviable, especially as that dishonest malicious fool Gove is in charge of it.
The government promised legal restrictions lifted after 21 June. So remove them. Not replace them with more bossy boots micro-managing.
The Govt promised, but conditionally. The data had to confirm, as we went along, that what was planned was safe. I'm no fan of this Govt., but I think they're right to be cautious. Don't make promises it would be unsafe to keep.
DM notificaiton: 6 in 10 drinkers welcome no jab, no pint apparently.
They'll be massively skewed over 50, Tory core vote. It's going to happen.
So long as it's landlord's choice and not the law.
No jab, no staff, no pint.
It is an utterly stupid idea. My fear is that the government, having promised the lifting of restrictions, is going to keep on imposing them - regardless of whether they are workable and regardless of the economic consequences for those affected. They seem, frankly, to have it in for the hospitality sector and pubs/restaurants in particular.
Why no support for wet-led pubs, who have been abandoned? Why can't pubs sell takeaway alcohol while off-licences and other shops can? Why no support for breweries? Why, now, all this kite-flying about yet more restrictions?
If Daughter is allowed to open her place again (and the limited April opening is no good for her without the government allowing marquees to be classified as outside space, which they currently aren't) she will be welcoming customers with open arms not checking whether they've had jabs in them.
A pub/restaurant is a place of pleasure and relaxation not an out-patient's clinic.
That's your daughter's choice. That's why I said "so long as it's landlord's choice". Her choice. Her business, her choice, her decision.
Some people want to make the decision for her and say she can't check things even if she wants to do so. Some people want to make the decision for her and say she must check things (which is what Israel is doing).
I am saying it needs to be her decision. If its her decision it is not a restriction. It is a freedom for her to choose, however she decides.
My fear is that this kite-flying to make it a requirement eg if you don't ask you need to keep people 2 metres apart or some such bollocks. There is no need to say anything about this at all. Because all publicans now have the legal right to bar anyone they please.
So this feels to me like the precursor to some new restriction which will render pubs unviable, especially as that dishonest malicious fool Gove is in charge of it.
The government promised legal restrictions lifted after 21 June. So remove them. Not replace them with more bossy boots micro-managing.
The Govt promised, but conditionally. The data had to confirm, as we went along, that what was planned was safe. I'm no fan of this Govt., but I think they're right to be cautious. Don't make promises it would be unsafe to keep.
But that makes no sense.
If a new super-variant emerges, smashing through the vaccine with a high infection and fatality rate then fair enough. But they are talking about a passport to deal with a situation which has not changed from that forecast.
All the data are indeed confirming this. The vaccine appears to be working, all the indicators are improving, we are, so far, exactly on course for the timetable so why now decide that the risk is somehow higher?
My fear is that this kite-flying to make it a requirement eg if you don't ask you need to keep people 2 metres apart or some such bollocks. There is no need to say anything about this at all. Because all publicans now have the legal right to bar anyone they please.
So this feels to me like the precursor to some new restriction which will render pubs unviable, especially as that dishonest malicious fool Gove is in charge of it.
The government promised legal restrictions lifted after 21 June. So remove them. Not replace them with more bossy boots micro-managing.
I'm sorry, but that is total nonsense. You've got it completely the wrong way round. It's a possible measure to make pubs (and theatres and concert halls and sports venues) viable, as an alternative to social distancing which wrecks the business model of many businesses. Of course it would be better if we can abandon all constraints, and that is the hope of the government as well as everyone else, but there's no point engaging in fantasy; if the virus is not fully under control, then some measures may still be needed. The choice then might be (a) close the pub completely, (b) open it but with severe social distancing rules, or (c) open it without those restrictions, but allow entry only to those who are vaccinated or tested. If that's the choice, why should the proprietor not be allowed to select (c), which saves her business? Would you prefer (a)?
You are missing the point, I am afraid.
If it is genuinely a matter of choice, then there is no issue. Landlords can already decide who to let in or not.
My concern is that this smells to me like kite-flying to impose some sort of new restriction - either legally or via Health and Safety - which will make it practically impossible for pubs to operate viably.
My daughter and none of her staff are vaccinated. Are they unable to work in their own pub? Or go out on their day off to another pub? Or restaurant?
Women of child-bearing age wanting to get pregnant don't get the vaccine. How is a landlord supposed to deal with them? What of those who don't have the vaccine for other health reasons?
There are far too many restrictions which have severely hindered the viability of hospitality venues: no drinking at the bar, table service, the substantial meal bollocks, no takeaway alcohol etc, not being able to use a marquee etc.
Pubs have been without an income for months and months now. Once open they need to be able to do business as they see fit not be micro-managed by Whitehall nitwits who know nothing of the practicalities involved.
As it is losing the Easter trade and not being able to open until the end of May or June loses a significant amount of revenue. The best part of two years without a proper income and without being able to operate freely is unsustainable and it's about time the comfortably off in Whitehall realised that. This would not matter so much if the support was adequate but it isn't. So if the government won't support then it needs to let them earn properly. Not change the goalposts yet again. We are not meant to be aiming for zero Covid after all.
DM notificaiton: 6 in 10 drinkers welcome no jab, no pint apparently.
They'll be massively skewed over 50, Tory core vote. It's going to happen.
So long as it's landlord's choice and not the law.
No jab, no staff, no pint.
It is an utterly stupid idea. My fear is that the government, having promised the lifting of restrictions, is going to keep on imposing them - regardless of whether they are workable and regardless of the economic consequences for those affected. They seem, frankly, to have it in for the hospitality sector and pubs/restaurants in particular.
Why no support for wet-led pubs, who have been abandoned? Why can't pubs sell takeaway alcohol while off-licences and other shops can? Why no support for breweries? Why, now, all this kite-flying about yet more restrictions?
If Daughter is allowed to open her place again (and the limited April opening is no good for her without the government allowing marquees to be classified as outside space, which they currently aren't) she will be welcoming customers with open arms not checking whether they've had jabs in them.
A pub/restaurant is a place of pleasure and relaxation not an out-patient's clinic.
That's your daughter's choice. That's why I said "so long as it's landlord's choice". Her choice. Her business, her choice, her decision.
Some people want to make the decision for her and say she can't check things even if she wants to do so. Some people want to make the decision for her and say she must check things (which is what Israel is doing).
I am saying it needs to be her decision. If its her decision it is not a restriction. It is a freedom for her to choose, however she decides.
My fear is that this kite-flying to make it a requirement eg if you don't ask you need to keep people 2 metres apart or some such bollocks. There is no need to say anything about this at all. Because all publicans now have the legal right to bar anyone they please.
So this feels to me like the precursor to some new restriction which will render pubs unviable, especially as that dishonest malicious fool Gove is in charge of it.
The government promised legal restrictions lifted after 21 June. So remove them. Not replace them with more bossy boots micro-managing.
That would be bollocks if it happens, but you seem to be arguing against something that's not been suggested. So long as restrictions are restricted by 21 June that's the end of the matter for that.
As for publicans having the right to refuse service, that is true but not unqualified. There's a reason publicans can't eg have a policy of "No blacks, no Irish". I'm not aware of any pub currently or previously checking for medical status and that is a personal matter that pubs may not be allowed to ask about unless they're permitted to ask about it.
Your daughter may want to welcome everyone, but a hypothetical wet led pub down the road might have an elderly, more vulnerable client base whose customers want them to ensure everyone who comes in is vaccinated. Why should that wet pub be refused the right to ask if that is what they want to do?
It should be personal choice for everyone.
As Cyclefree pointed out, it is. ...Because all publicans now have the legal right to bar anyone they please...
Except that's not as clear cut as that.
Yes a pub can refuse a troublemaker or refuse service for an individual if they want to do so, discriminating against groups based on characteristics is another matter.
A pub can't say "no blacks" because that would violate discrimination laws. A pub landlord can refuse to serve a black person if they have a reason to want to refuse service, they can't have a blanket policy of refusing all black people.
Why this might need explicit legislation, is age a protected characteristic ?
A ban on the unvaccinated is for a few months, age based discrimination.
Age is a protected characteristic. It would be indirect discrimination for a few months and landlords would have to show that it was a proportionate means of acheiving a legitimate aim if challenged upon it.
Looks like it'll be dodged by the err passports being "in development" and coming out only when jabs have been offered to everyone.
DM notificaiton: 6 in 10 drinkers welcome no jab, no pint apparently.
They'll be massively skewed over 50, Tory core vote. It's going to happen.
So long as it's landlord's choice and not the law.
No jab, no staff, no pint.
It is an utterly stupid idea. My fear is that the government, having promised the lifting of restrictions, is going to keep on imposing them - regardless of whether they are workable and regardless of the economic consequences for those affected. They seem, frankly, to have it in for the hospitality sector and pubs/restaurants in particular.
Why no support for wet-led pubs, who have been abandoned? Why can't pubs sell takeaway alcohol while off-licences and other shops can? Why no support for breweries? Why, now, all this kite-flying about yet more restrictions?
If Daughter is allowed to open her place again (and the limited April opening is no good for her without the government allowing marquees to be classified as outside space, which they currently aren't) she will be welcoming customers with open arms not checking whether they've had jabs in them.
A pub/restaurant is a place of pleasure and relaxation not an out-patient's clinic.
That's your daughter's choice. That's why I said "so long as it's landlord's choice". Her choice. Her business, her choice, her decision.
Some people want to make the decision for her and say she can't check things even if she wants to do so. Some people want to make the decision for her and say she must check things (which is what Israel is doing).
I am saying it needs to be her decision. If its her decision it is not a restriction. It is a freedom for her to choose, however she decides.
My fear is that this kite-flying to make it a requirement eg if you don't ask you need to keep people 2 metres apart or some such bollocks. There is no need to say anything about this at all. Because all publicans now have the legal right to bar anyone they please.
So this feels to me like the precursor to some new restriction which will render pubs unviable, especially as that dishonest malicious fool Gove is in charge of it.
The government promised legal restrictions lifted after 21 June. So remove them. Not replace them with more bossy boots micro-managing.
That would be bollocks if it happens, but you seem to be arguing against something that's not been suggested. So long as restrictions are restricted by 21 June that's the end of the matter for that.
As for publicans having the right to refuse service, that is true but not unqualified. There's a reason publicans can't eg have a policy of "No blacks, no Irish". I'm not aware of any pub currently or previously checking for medical status and that is a personal matter that pubs may not be allowed to ask about unless they're permitted to ask about it.
Your daughter may want to welcome everyone, but a hypothetical wet led pub down the road might have an elderly, more vulnerable client base whose customers want them to ensure everyone who comes in is vaccinated. Why should that wet pub be refused the right to ask if that is what they want to do?
It should be personal choice for everyone.
As Cyclefree pointed out, it is. ...Because all publicans now have the legal right to bar anyone they please...
Except that's not as clear cut as that.
Yes a pub can refuse a troublemaker or refuse service for an individual if they want to do so, discriminating against groups based on characteristics is another matter.
A pub can't say "no blacks" because that would violate discrimination laws. A pub landlord can refuse to serve a black person if they have a reason to want to refuse service, they can't have a blanket policy of refusing all black people.
Why this might need explicit legislation, is age a protected characteristic ?
A ban on the unvaccinated is for a few months, age based discrimination.
Age is a protected characteristic. It would be indirect discrimination for a few months and landlords would have to show that it was a proportionate means of acheiving a legitimate aim if challenged upon it.
Looks like it'll be dodged by the err passports being "in development" and coming out only when jabs have been offered to everyone.
DM notificaiton: 6 in 10 drinkers welcome no jab, no pint apparently.
They'll be massively skewed over 50, Tory core vote. It's going to happen.
So long as it's landlord's choice and not the law.
No jab, no staff, no pint.
It is an utterly stupid idea. My fear is that the government, having promised the lifting of restrictions, is going to keep on imposing them - regardless of whether they are workable and regardless of the economic consequences for those affected. They seem, frankly, to have it in for the hospitality sector and pubs/restaurants in particular.
Why no support for wet-led pubs, who have been abandoned? Why can't pubs sell takeaway alcohol while off-licences and other shops can? Why no support for breweries? Why, now, all this kite-flying about yet more restrictions?
If Daughter is allowed to open her place again (and the limited April opening is no good for her without the government allowing marquees to be classified as outside space, which they currently aren't) she will be welcoming customers with open arms not checking whether they've had jabs in them.
A pub/restaurant is a place of pleasure and relaxation not an out-patient's clinic.
That's your daughter's choice. That's why I said "so long as it's landlord's choice". Her choice. Her business, her choice, her decision.
Some people want to make the decision for her and say she can't check things even if she wants to do so. Some people want to make the decision for her and say she must check things (which is what Israel is doing).
I am saying it needs to be her decision. If its her decision it is not a restriction. It is a freedom for her to choose, however she decides.
My fear is that this kite-flying to make it a requirement eg if you don't ask you need to keep people 2 metres apart or some such bollocks. There is no need to say anything about this at all. Because all publicans now have the legal right to bar anyone they please.
So this feels to me like the precursor to some new restriction which will render pubs unviable, especially as that dishonest malicious fool Gove is in charge of it.
The government promised legal restrictions lifted after 21 June. So remove them. Not replace them with more bossy boots micro-managing.
That would be bollocks if it happens, but you seem to be arguing against something that's not been suggested. So long as restrictions are restricted by 21 June that's the end of the matter for that.
As for publicans having the right to refuse service, that is true but not unqualified. There's a reason publicans can't eg have a policy of "No blacks, no Irish". I'm not aware of any pub currently or previously checking for medical status and that is a personal matter that pubs may not be allowed to ask about unless they're permitted to ask about it.
Your daughter may want to welcome everyone, but a hypothetical wet led pub down the road might have an elderly, more vulnerable client base whose customers want them to ensure everyone who comes in is vaccinated. Why should that wet pub be refused the right to ask if that is what they want to do?
It should be personal choice for everyone.
As Cyclefree pointed out, it is. ...Because all publicans now have the legal right to bar anyone they please...
Except that's not as clear cut as that.
Yes a pub can refuse a troublemaker or refuse service for an individual if they want to do so, discriminating against groups based on characteristics is another matter.
A pub can't say "no blacks" because that would violate discrimination laws. A pub landlord can refuse to serve a black person if they have a reason to want to refuse service, they can't have a blanket policy of refusing all black people.
Why this might need explicit legislation, is age a protected characteristic ?
A ban on the unvaccinated is for a few months, age based discrimination.
Age is a protected characteristic. It would be indirect discrimination for a few months and landlords would have to show that it was a proportionate means of acheiving a legitimate aim if challenged upon it.
Looks like it'll be dodged by the err passports being "in development" and coming out only when jabs have been offered to everyone.
Which would be better than the way it was presented last night. I was amazed at Nick Palmer's attitude, that it would be absolutely fine to exclude twentysomethings, who haven't been offered a vaccine, and who are at an absolutely tiny risk from Covid, so he can go down the pub.
My fear is that this kite-flying to make it a requirement eg if you don't ask you need to keep people 2 metres apart or some such bollocks. There is no need to say anything about this at all. Because all publicans now have the legal right to bar anyone they please.
So this feels to me like the precursor to some new restriction which will render pubs unviable, especially as that dishonest malicious fool Gove is in charge of it.
The government promised legal restrictions lifted after 21 June. So remove them. Not replace them with more bossy boots micro-managing.
I'm sorry, but that is total nonsense. You've got it completely the wrong way round. It's a possible measure to make pubs (and theatres and concert halls and sports venues) viable, as an alternative to social distancing which wrecks the business model of many businesses. Of course it would be better if we can abandon all constraints, and that is the hope of the government as well as everyone else, but there's no point engaging in fantasy; if the virus is not fully under control, then some measures may still be needed. The choice then might be (a) close the pub completely, (b) open it but with severe social distancing rules, or (c) open it without those restrictions, but allow entry only to those who are vaccinated or tested. If that's the choice, why should the proprietor not be allowed to select (c), which saves her business? Would you prefer (a)?
You are missing the point, I am afraid.
If it is genuinely a matter of choice, then there is no issue. Landlords can already decide who to let in or not.
My concern is that this smells to me like kite-flying to impose some sort of new restriction - either legally or via Health and Safety - which will make it practically impossible for pubs to operate viably.
My daughter and none of her staff are vaccinated. Are they unable to work in their own pub? Or go out on their day off to another pub? Or restaurant?
Women of child-bearing age wanting to get pregnant don't get the vaccine. How is a landlord supposed to deal with them? What of those who don't have the vaccine for other health reasons?
There are far too many restrictions which have severely hindered the viability of hospitality venues: no drinking at the bar, table service, the substantial meal bollocks, no takeaway alcohol etc, not being able to use a marquee etc.
Pubs have been without an income for months and months now. Once open they need to be able to do business as they see fit not be micro-managed by Whitehall nitwits who know nothing of the practicalities involved.
As it is losing the Easter trade and not being able to open until the end of May or June loses a significant amount of revenue. The best part of two years without a proper income and without being able to operate freely is unsustainable and it's about time the comfortably off in Whitehall realised that. This would not matter so much if the support was adequate but it isn't. So if the government won't support then it needs to let them earn properly. Not change the goalposts yet again. We are not meant to be aiming for zero Covid after all.
I would agree, but takeaway alcohol isn't banned AFAIK. There's a lovely pub near me that serves both booze and food on a takeaway basis, but you don't have to buy food to buy beer.
DM notificaiton: 6 in 10 drinkers welcome no jab, no pint apparently.
They'll be massively skewed over 50, Tory core vote. It's going to happen.
So long as it's landlord's choice and not the law.
No jab, no staff, no pint.
It is an utterly stupid idea. My fear is that the government, having promised the lifting of restrictions, is going to keep on imposing them - regardless of whether they are workable and regardless of the economic consequences for those affected. They seem, frankly, to have it in for the hospitality sector and pubs/restaurants in particular.
Why no support for wet-led pubs, who have been abandoned? Why can't pubs sell takeaway alcohol while off-licences and other shops can? Why no support for breweries? Why, now, all this kite-flying about yet more restrictions?
If Daughter is allowed to open her place again (and the limited April opening is no good for her without the government allowing marquees to be classified as outside space, which they currently aren't) she will be welcoming customers with open arms not checking whether they've had jabs in them.
A pub/restaurant is a place of pleasure and relaxation not an out-patient's clinic.
That's your daughter's choice. That's why I said "so long as it's landlord's choice". Her choice. Her business, her choice, her decision.
Some people want to make the decision for her and say she can't check things even if she wants to do so. Some people want to make the decision for her and say she must check things (which is what Israel is doing).
I am saying it needs to be her decision. If its her decision it is not a restriction. It is a freedom for her to choose, however she decides.
My fear is that this kite-flying to make it a requirement eg if you don't ask you need to keep people 2 metres apart or some such bollocks. There is no need to say anything about this at all. Because all publicans now have the legal right to bar anyone they please.
So this feels to me like the precursor to some new restriction which will render pubs unviable, especially as that dishonest malicious fool Gove is in charge of it.
The government promised legal restrictions lifted after 21 June. So remove them. Not replace them with more bossy boots micro-managing.
That would be bollocks if it happens, but you seem to be arguing against something that's not been suggested. So long as restrictions are restricted by 21 June that's the end of the matter for that.
As for publicans having the right to refuse service, that is true but not unqualified. There's a reason publicans can't eg have a policy of "No blacks, no Irish". I'm not aware of any pub currently or previously checking for medical status and that is a personal matter that pubs may not be allowed to ask about unless they're permitted to ask about it.
Your daughter may want to welcome everyone, but a hypothetical wet led pub down the road might have an elderly, more vulnerable client base whose customers want them to ensure everyone who comes in is vaccinated. Why should that wet pub be refused the right to ask if that is what they want to do?
It should be personal choice for everyone.
As Cyclefree pointed out, it is. ...Because all publicans now have the legal right to bar anyone they please...
Except that's not as clear cut as that.
Yes a pub can refuse a troublemaker or refuse service for an individual if they want to do so, discriminating against groups based on characteristics is another matter.
A pub can't say "no blacks" because that would violate discrimination laws. A pub landlord can refuse to serve a black person if they have a reason to want to refuse service, they can't have a blanket policy of refusing all black people.
Why this might need explicit legislation, is age a protected characteristic ?
A ban on the unvaccinated is for a few months, age based discrimination.
Age is a protected characteristic. It would be indirect discrimination for a few months and landlords would have to show that it was a proportionate means of acheiving a legitimate aim if challenged upon it.
Looks like it'll be dodged by the err passports being "in development" and coming out only when jabs have been offered to everyone.
DM notificaiton: 6 in 10 drinkers welcome no jab, no pint apparently.
They'll be massively skewed over 50, Tory core vote. It's going to happen.
So long as it's landlord's choice and not the law.
No jab, no staff, no pint.
It is an utterly stupid idea. My fear is that the government, having promised the lifting of restrictions, is going to keep on imposing them - regardless of whether they are workable and regardless of the economic consequences for those affected. They seem, frankly, to have it in for the hospitality sector and pubs/restaurants in particular.
Why no support for wet-led pubs, who have been abandoned? Why can't pubs sell takeaway alcohol while off-licences and other shops can? Why no support for breweries? Why, now, all this kite-flying about yet more restrictions?
If Daughter is allowed to open her place again (and the limited April opening is no good for her without the government allowing marquees to be classified as outside space, which they currently aren't) she will be welcoming customers with open arms not checking whether they've had jabs in them.
A pub/restaurant is a place of pleasure and relaxation not an out-patient's clinic.
That's your daughter's choice. That's why I said "so long as it's landlord's choice". Her choice. Her business, her choice, her decision.
Some people want to make the decision for her and say she can't check things even if she wants to do so. Some people want to make the decision for her and say she must check things (which is what Israel is doing).
I am saying it needs to be her decision. If its her decision it is not a restriction. It is a freedom for her to choose, however she decides.
My fear is that this kite-flying to make it a requirement eg if you don't ask you need to keep people 2 metres apart or some such bollocks. There is no need to say anything about this at all. Because all publicans now have the legal right to bar anyone they please.
So this feels to me like the precursor to some new restriction which will render pubs unviable, especially as that dishonest malicious fool Gove is in charge of it.
The government promised legal restrictions lifted after 21 June. So remove them. Not replace them with more bossy boots micro-managing.
That would be bollocks if it happens, but you seem to be arguing against something that's not been suggested. So long as restrictions are restricted by 21 June that's the end of the matter for that.
As for publicans having the right to refuse service, that is true but not unqualified. There's a reason publicans can't eg have a policy of "No blacks, no Irish". I'm not aware of any pub currently or previously checking for medical status and that is a personal matter that pubs may not be allowed to ask about unless they're permitted to ask about it.
Your daughter may want to welcome everyone, but a hypothetical wet led pub down the road might have an elderly, more vulnerable client base whose customers want them to ensure everyone who comes in is vaccinated. Why should that wet pub be refused the right to ask if that is what they want to do?
It should be personal choice for everyone.
As Cyclefree pointed out, it is. ...Because all publicans now have the legal right to bar anyone they please...
Except that's not as clear cut as that.
Yes a pub can refuse a troublemaker or refuse service for an individual if they want to do so, discriminating against groups based on characteristics is another matter.
A pub can't say "no blacks" because that would violate discrimination laws. A pub landlord can refuse to serve a black person if they have a reason to want to refuse service, they can't have a blanket policy of refusing all black people.
Why this might need explicit legislation, is age a protected characteristic ?
A ban on the unvaccinated is for a few months, age based discrimination.
Age is a protected characteristic. It would be indirect discrimination for a few months and landlords would have to show that it was a proportionate means of acheiving a legitimate aim if challenged upon it.
Looks like it'll be dodged by the err passports being "in development" and coming out only when jabs have been offered to everyone.
My feeling on this is Govt policy is to keep considering this until it isn't needed - appeasing the war isn't over lets stay in the Jungle types without losing the libertarians.
My fear is that this kite-flying to make it a requirement eg if you don't ask you need to keep people 2 metres apart or some such bollocks. There is no need to say anything about this at all. Because all publicans now have the legal right to bar anyone they please.
So this feels to me like the precursor to some new restriction which will render pubs unviable, especially as that dishonest malicious fool Gove is in charge of it.
The government promised legal restrictions lifted after 21 June. So remove them. Not replace them with more bossy boots micro-managing.
I'm sorry, but that is total nonsense. You've got it completely the wrong way round. It's a possible measure to make pubs (and theatres and concert halls and sports venues) viable, as an alternative to social distancing which wrecks the business model of many businesses. Of course it would be better if we can abandon all constraints, and that is the hope of the government as well as everyone else, but there's no point engaging in fantasy; if the virus is not fully under control, then some measures may still be needed. The choice then might be (a) close the pub completely, (b) open it but with severe social distancing rules, or (c) open it without those restrictions, but allow entry only to those who are vaccinated or tested. If that's the choice, why should the proprietor not be allowed to select (c), which saves her business? Would you prefer (a)?
You are missing the point, I am afraid.
If it is genuinely a matter of choice, then there is no issue. Landlords can already decide who to let in or not.
My concern is that this smells to me like kite-flying to impose some sort of new restriction - either legally or via Health and Safety - which will make it practically impossible for pubs to operate viably.
My daughter and none of her staff are vaccinated. Are they unable to work in their own pub? Or go out on their day off to another pub? Or restaurant?
Women of child-bearing age wanting to get pregnant don't get the vaccine. How is a landlord supposed to deal with them? What of those who don't have the vaccine for other health reasons?
There are far too many restrictions which have severely hindered the viability of hospitality venues: no drinking at the bar, table service, the substantial meal bollocks, no takeaway alcohol etc, not being able to use a marquee etc.
Pubs have been without an income for months and months now. Once open they need to be able to do business as they see fit not be micro-managed by Whitehall nitwits who know nothing of the practicalities involved.
As it is losing the Easter trade and not being able to open until the end of May or June loses a significant amount of revenue. The best part of two years without a proper income and without being able to operate freely is unsustainable and it's about time the comfortably off in Whitehall realised that. This would not matter so much if the support was adequate but it isn't. So if the government won't support then it needs to let them earn properly. Not change the goalposts yet again. We are not meant to be aiming for zero Covid after all.
Oh they are quite happy for the young to work in whatever establishment, whether it is a school, pub, hospital, shop or care home. They dont want the young having fun though, that is an activity to be reserved for the privileged.
I can hear myself going all "contrarian", I don't like it at all, but it does seem the combination of those who benefit from lockdown life and those who are scared of re-opening are going to keep shifting the goalposts week by week, inch by inch at the blatant expense of the rest of us.
The deal is and was society gave up our rights and freedoms to protect the NHS from a clear and imminent threat. That was entirely the right thing to do, but is no longer what is being proposed.
Which would be better than the way it was presented last night. I was amazed at Nick Palmer's attitude, that it would be absolutely fine to exclude twentysomethings, who haven't been offered a vaccine, and who are at an absolutely tiny risk from Covid, so he can go down the pub.
No-one is saying that it's absolutely fine. They are saying that it might be preferable to the alternative, which is that the pub stays closed completely. Which is absolutely sensible.
My fear is that this kite-flying to make it a requirement eg if you don't ask you need to keep people 2 metres apart or some such bollocks. There is no need to say anything about this at all. Because all publicans now have the legal right to bar anyone they please.
So this feels to me like the precursor to some new restriction which will render pubs unviable, especially as that dishonest malicious fool Gove is in charge of it.
The government promised legal restrictions lifted after 21 June. So remove them. Not replace them with more bossy boots micro-managing.
I'm sorry, but that is total nonsense. You've got it completely the wrong way round. It's a possible measure to make pubs (and theatres and concert halls and sports venues) viable, as an alternative to social distancing which wrecks the business model of many businesses. Of course it would be better if we can abandon all constraints, and that is the hope of the government as well as everyone else, but there's no point engaging in fantasy; if the virus is not fully under control, then some measures may still be needed. The choice then might be (a) close the pub completely, (b) open it but with severe social distancing rules, or (c) open it without those restrictions, but allow entry only to those who are vaccinated or tested. If that's the choice, why should the proprietor not be allowed to select (c), which saves her business? Would you prefer (a)?
I think our rate of vaccination deployment makes all these discussions moot, particularly with the cautious dates for reopening, and the high uptake of the vaccine.
There are only going to be a few weeks where it might make a small difference. Why bother?
Oh, quite, I agree. Hopefully none of this will be necessary.
Which would be better than the way it was presented last night. I was amazed at Nick Palmer's attitude, that it would be absolutely fine to exclude twentysomethings, who haven't been offered a vaccine, and who are at an absolutely tiny risk from Covid, so he can go down the pub.
No-one is saying that it's absolutely fine. They are saying that it might be preferable to the alternative, which is that the pub stays closed completely. Which is absolutely sensible.
In my experience, young people don’t drink enough any more anyway. It’s the 35+ age bracket that use the pubs. Young folk can come back to me when they demonstrate a plan of attack for pub reopening which consists of more than drinking two pints and getting home for a good night’s sleep.
Alarmingly slurred speech and surely a marked deterioration over recent months, he also looks and sounds incredibly fatigued. It's difficult to imagine that he's going to be able to hold office until Jan'y 2025
Comments
But in my vague, Bidenesque manner, I detect an overlap.
Also... he said "there is no thing a man can do that a woman can't do as well or better", which implies the reverse is not true.
Does it really ?
Can you imagine for a moment a politician saying "there is no thing a woman can do that a man can't do as well or better". Now imagine the reaction.
I'm no fan of this Govt., but I think they're right to be cautious. Don't make promises it would be unsafe to keep.
If a new super-variant emerges, smashing through the vaccine with a high infection and fatality rate then fair enough. But they are talking about a passport to deal with a situation which has not changed from that forecast.
All the data are indeed confirming this. The vaccine appears to be working, all the indicators are improving, we are, so far, exactly on course for the timetable so why now decide that the risk is somehow higher?
If it is genuinely a matter of choice, then there is no issue. Landlords can already decide who to let in or not.
My concern is that this smells to me like kite-flying to impose some sort of new restriction - either legally or via Health and Safety - which will make it practically impossible for pubs to operate viably.
My daughter and none of her staff are vaccinated. Are they unable to work in their own pub? Or go out on their day off to another pub? Or restaurant?
Women of child-bearing age wanting to get pregnant don't get the vaccine. How is a landlord supposed to deal with them? What of those who don't have the vaccine for other health reasons?
There are far too many restrictions which have severely hindered the viability of hospitality venues: no drinking at the bar, table service, the substantial meal bollocks, no takeaway alcohol etc, not being able to use a marquee etc.
Pubs have been without an income for months and months now. Once open they need to be able to do business as they see fit not be micro-managed by Whitehall nitwits who know nothing of the practicalities involved.
As it is losing the Easter trade and not being able to open until the end of May or June loses a significant amount of revenue. The best part of two years without a proper income and without being able to operate freely is unsustainable and it's about time the comfortably off in Whitehall realised that. This would not matter so much if the support was adequate but it isn't. So if the government won't support then it needs to let them earn properly. Not change the goalposts yet again. We are not meant to be aiming for zero Covid after all.
I can hear myself going all "contrarian", I don't like it at all, but it does seem the combination of those who benefit from lockdown life and those who are scared of re-opening are going to keep shifting the goalposts week by week, inch by inch at the blatant expense of the rest of us.
The deal is and was society gave up our rights and freedoms to protect the NHS from a clear and imminent threat. That was entirely the right thing to do, but is no longer what is being proposed.
https://twitter.com/ofalafel/status/1375027132947165185?s=21