10pm pub curfew

[scotia]

I Know that I'm wandering far from the initial amusing contribution, but I thought that I'd look back at other restrictions on drinking in times of peril.
LLoyd George declared "We are fighting Germany, Austria and drink, and so far as I can see the greatest of these deadly foes is drink" . So he introduced the Carlisle experiment - nationalising all of the breweries, pubs and licensed premises around the Carlisle area. And nationwide a "No Treating Order" was introduced - no alcohol was allowed to be purchased by one person for another.
In the Antipodes the 6pm Pub closure rule was introduced (and was in place until 1967 in New Zealand, when it was extended to 10pm)

[bungeejumper]

Unsurprisingly the media tend to report what they wish to report.

You'd rather they reported what the government wants them to report?

The media gets a lot of things wrong - it is, after all, populated largely by generalist journalists, not by subject specialists, and its owners tend to keep one eye on their sales figures. They are, after all, free agents who rely on profits to survive.

Agenda-driven views, tendentiousness and errors are therefore likely to happen. It's all part of this slippery thing that we call democracy. The fact that the media's functions include holding the government to account doesn't mean that they'll all speak with one accord. Or that the Daily Mirror will empathise with the Spectator's views and methodologies.

Get used to it. Unless you'd prefer the Chinese press model?

BJ

[johnhemming]

Unsurprisingly the media tend to report what they wish to report.

You'd rather they reported what the government wants them to report?

The media gets a lot of things wrong - it is, after all, populated largely by generalist journalists, not by subject specialists, and its owners tend to keep one eye on their sales figures. They are, after all, free agents who rely on profits to survive.

Agenda-driven views, tendentiousness and errors are therefore likely to happen. It's all part of this slippery thing that we call democracy. The fact that the media's functions include holding the government to account doesn't mean that they'll all speak with one accord. Or that the Daily Mirror will empathise with the Spectator's views and methodologies.

Get used to it. Unless you'd prefer the Chinese press model?

BJ

That was not a point of criticism. It is simply a statement which is that media tends to report what they want to report. They make those decisions mainly on the basis of what they think their audience would like to read/hear/see although there is some variation.

[servodude]

They make those decisions mainly on the basis of what they think their audience would like to read/hear/see although there is some variation.

I think this ^ is absolutely spot on! and subtlety different from what the media themselves wish to report

- sd

[JohnB]

The ramping case numbers show we can't have hospitality, schools and home visits all allowed, even with isolation measures in place. The acceleration is so dramatic that tinkering with rules is no use. Pubs need to be completely closed, else we lose home visits which is far worse.

Everyone expected a second wave in chilly October but we got it in a sunny september where outdoor activity was fine.

Trying to restart the catering economy is a failed experiment, the levers need to be pulled hard.

[Nimrod103]

I Know that I'm wandering far from the initial amusing contribution, but I thought that I'd look back at other restrictions on drinking in times of peril.
LLoyd George declared "We are fighting Germany, Austria and drink, and so far as I can see the greatest of these deadly foes is drink" . So he introduced the Carlisle experiment - nationalising all of the breweries, pubs and licensed premises around the Carlisle area. And nationwide a "No Treating Order" was introduced - no alcohol was allowed to be purchased by one person for another.
In the Antipodes the 6pm Pub closure rule was introduced (and was in place until 1967 in New Zealand, when it was extended to 10pm)

It was also the case in Australia till About the same date. It was known as the ‘6 o’clock Swill’. Workers leaving the office had half an hour to get a drink. It was mayhem, yet went on for many years.

[johnhemming]

They make those decisions mainly on the basis of what they think their audience would like to read/hear/see although there is some variation.

I think this ^ is absolutely spot on! and subtlety different from what the media themselves wish to report

- sd

That is why outlets won't generally report things that they think will make their audience unhappy in the sense of conflicting with their world view.

[scotia]

I Know that I'm wandering far from the initial amusing contribution, but I thought that I'd look back at other restrictions on drinking in times of peril.
LLoyd George declared "We are fighting Germany, Austria and drink, and so far as I can see the greatest of these deadly foes is drink" . So he introduced the Carlisle experiment - nationalising all of the breweries, pubs and licensed premises around the Carlisle area. And nationwide a "No Treating Order" was introduced - no alcohol was allowed to be purchased by one person for another.
In the Antipodes the 6pm Pub closure rule was introduced (and was in place until 1967 in New Zealand, when it was extended to 10pm)

It was also the case in Australia till About the same date. It was known as the ‘6 o’clock Swill’. Workers leaving the office had half an hour to get a drink. It was mayhem, yet went on for many years.

Over seventy years ago we had a neighbour with a drink problem. He knew it was a problem, but he found it difficult to keep clear of Pubs when his workmates didn't. So the family decided to emigrate to New Zealand, where he felt that his problem would be curtailed by the 6pm curfew. I was a child at the time - so I don't know if the ploy worked.

[johnhemming]

There are now two other themes in the media

a) People having parties in the street at 10.15pm

b) People getting all the drinking in before 10pm by starting earlier.

[bungeejumper]

That is why [media, my insertion, BJ] outlets won't generally report things that they think will make their audience unhappy in the sense of conflicting with their world view.

Oh, indeed. And more than that. A neighbour's son was a senior European editor for the Daily Mail, based outside the UK - and actually, for all I know he still is. After a few drinks (which is where we came in ), he would often say that very few of the Wail's hacks personally believed in the hard 'company line' on European affairs, but that they were under constant pressure to come up with stories that would please the readers. Indeed, he said, there was a sort of unofficial competition between them to produce extreme show-stopping tales that would do the job and secure their own promotions.

That, of course, doesn't exactly flatter the journos! Because they weren't just making mistakes, they were being actively complicit in distortions. But it casts a light on the complexity of the forces within some sections of the media.

Right now, the Mail is complaining about pub curfew-breakers, but this time next week it may have swung behind the revellers. It did, however, point out this morning that the House of Commons bars are exempt from the 10 pm curfew. Miaow.

BJ

[swill453]

There are now two other themes in the media

a) People having parties in the street at 10.15pm

b) People getting all the drinking in before 10pm by starting earlier.

Yes that's happening. But is the overall potential contact between infected and non-infected people better or worse than if the pubs were open another 2/3/4/5 hours?

Scott.

[johnhemming]

Oh, indeed. And more than that. A neighbour's son was a senior European editor for the Daily Mail, based outside the UK - and actually, for all I know he still is. After a few drinks (which is where we came in ), he would often say that very few of the Wail's hacks personally believed in the hard 'company line' on European affairs, but that they were under constant pressure to come up with stories that would please the readers. Indeed, he said, there was a sort of unofficial competition between them to produce extreme show-stopping tales that would do the job and secure their own promotions.

This is, however, essentially true for all outlets apart from possibly the FT, but I don't think they are immune.

The Guardian, of course, comes from a different angle.

I used to do a lot of human interest type stories, but I knew that it really needed to be a human that the readers of the paper would be interested in.

I once got the front page of the Morning Star because I had story which was critical of PFI (It related to the abuse of optimism bias). It was in fact quite an interesting story that should have been reported more widely (and particularly by the FT), but for some reason people did not seem bothered.

[johnhemming]

Yes that's happening. But is the overall potential contact between infected and non-infected people better or worse than if the pubs were open another 2/3/4/5 hours?

We don't know, but it is quite likely that there will be more super spreading type events from the street parties.

[Nimrod103]

Yes that's happening. But is the overall potential contact between infected and non-infected people better or worse than if the pubs were open another 2/3/4/5 hours?

We don't know, but it is quite likely that there will be more super spreading type events from the street parties.

Justification is perhaps based on the argument that spread of the infection outside appears to be very much reduced, compared to inside a sealed, air conditioned/heated pub. And people on the streets are likely to spread out a bit more, than huddled inside.

However, there has emerged a major problem with British people (some British people) behaving themselves. Dr John Campbell in a very recent video reported a survey of the general popuation saying that 80% of British people who, if they were supposed to self isolate, would refuse to do so, whether infected or not.

[sg31]

However, there has emerged a major problem with British people (some British people) behaving themselves. Dr John Campbell in a very recent video reported a survey of the general popuation saying that 80% of British people who, if they were supposed to self isolate, would refuse to do so, whether infected or not.

I find it sad that people take that attitude and are prepared to infect others in their family and community.

To some extent the Govenment have brought it on themselves (and the rest of us) with their response to the Dominic Cummings affair. The excuses they made and the reasons put forward to suggest what he did was perfectly reasonable lost them all credibility with a lot of people.

If what Cummings did was acceptable it was very badly explained. No reason was put forward why they had told the public one thing but Mr Cummings was working under different rules.

[Nimrod103]

However, there has emerged a major problem with British people (some British people) behaving themselves. Dr John Campbell in a very recent video reported a survey of the general popuation saying that 80% of British people who, if they were supposed to self isolate, would refuse to do so, whether infected or not.

I find it sad that people take that attitude and are prepared to infect others in their family and community.

To some extent the Govenment have brought it on themselves (and the rest of us) with their response to the Dominic Cummings affair. The excuses they made and the reasons put forward to suggest what he did was perfectly reasonable lost them all credibility with a lot of people.

If what Cummings did was acceptable it was very badly explained. No reason was put forward why they had told the public one thing but Mr Cummings was working under different rules.

That was at the start of the infection, this is now. We are all supposed to know how the infection is spread, how dangerous it is, and what we individuallu should do to prevent its spread. One could criticize Cummings for perhaps putting some people at risk if he had come into close contact with them on his journey, but there is no evidence he did. We must presume he understood the issue about social distancing, even then.
Now however, there seems to be a growing view among large sections of the population that they alone are the judge in interpreting how the rules apply to themselves:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/20 ... tegy-work/

The rules have IMV almost completely broken down, and despite the clamouring of the media early on that going for herd immunity was immoral, and the clamouring of some people that more and early lockdowns were needed, the population at large has decided that herd immunity is the way to go.