Meddling Medley's threat to pubs

The news that the government’s scientific advisors are considering the re-imposition of restrictions on pubs and restaurants, as some sort of a trade-off between the full re-opening of schools in England, has taken many commentators by surprise. The story, which featured in both the Guardian and the Telegraph, will send shockwaves through a hospitality sector already stricken by over three months of enforced closure, and comes at a time when the licensed and restaurant trades are slowly getting back on their feet.

Unfortunately, it is yet another example of the media-induced, mass-hysteria surrounding Coronavirus and demonstrates how our hard-won freedoms and liberties are being eroded by the increasingly powerful “Nanny state” in the guise of Public Health England.

Professor Graham Medley, a member of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE), has suggested that because of recent increases in Coronavirus infections, it might come down to prioritising which areas of public life we should keep open and which should be closed. Medley claimed that the re-opening of schools might come down to a trade-off involving the closure of another sector and then went on to ask, “Do we think pubs are more important than schools?” 

Well apart from telling this self-appointed “expert” to go forth and multiply, I know what my answer to this question would be, and I imagine there are tens of thousands out there who would agree with me. Unfortunately, Prime Minister Johnson appears to be backing his SAGE committee, stating, “Getting pupils back into the classroom was a national priority, while other freedoms were ‘conditional’.”

Now I’m not sure I heard that right, but these are dangerous words for the leader of a supposedly free and democratic country to be uttering. They smack of dictatorship, wrapped up in the guise of “Nanny knows best,” and bring with them shades of 1984 and “Big Brother.

I’m also concerned over the increasingly emotional arguments being used to justify these curbs on our liberties, and the effect the continuing closures of certain sectors is having on our already fragile and damaged economy. 

To argue that the education of the “cheeldren” should take preference over other key sectors of the economy, is the exactly the same spurious argument that the life of a police officer is somehow worth more than  that of an ordinary member of the public. These example illustrate how, regardless of the facts, emotion is often used as a foil against cold, level-headed logic.

Instead, the question must be, will the nation accept another lock-down, especially when they can see no real light at the end of the tunnel? Populations all over the world are becoming increasingly restless over restrictions imposed in the name of public health.  Earlier today, in Germany, a demonstration in Berlin against the wearing of masks attracted an estimated crowd of 20,000 protestors, and this is in a country where people are normally renowned for their adherence to the rules.

The subject of masks has also sparked fierce debate, here in the UK, with the chairman of the Metropolitan Police Federation openly criticising the government over what is seen increasingly as "making up policy on the hoof." The PM’s expectation that already over-stretched police forces should  enforce the mandatory wearing of masks in retail outlets, is one area where the government has failed to provide clarity, as is the late night announcement of the new restrictions affecting certain parts of the Yorkshire and the North West. Local businesses, and also the police were given very little time to prepare for these changes, or to decide how they should be monitored and enforced. 

This comes on top of the requirement for all travellers returning from Spain, to self-isolate for 14 days; yet another policy that was brought in at extremely short notice.

Many people I have spoken to are also becoming increasingly angry over the government’s muddle-headed approach, and this latest piece of nonsense over pubs, from “Meddling Medley,” will only serve to inflame what is an already tense situation.  

Work from home - if you can!

“All those able to work from home should do so.” Part of a directive from the UK government at the start of the Coronavirus pandemic. Sound advice at the time as the intention was to reduce contact between people and thereby bring down the rate of transmission of the virus.

Four months on from Downing Street’s panic-inducing letter and many people are still following this advice, even though in many cases it is perfectly safe for them to return to their place of work. This applies at the company I work for, and is something I want to come onto later, but for now I want to concentrate on the presumption, by government – but backed up by the MSM, that a substantial proportion of the UK workforce are able to perform their daily tasks from the comfort of their own homes.

Because many politicians have little idea of life outside the Westminster “bubble” they have this notion that many UK workers spend their days sitting in front of a computer screen. This may well be true for those employed in sectors such as finance, insurance or tele-sales, but in their rush to embrace working from home for these workers, they conveniently ignore those who work in manufacturing, distribution, retail, transport and construction.

The press has adopted a similar approach, probably because the days of investigative reporters, out on the streets sniffing out a story are long gone. Today, it far more usual to find journalists also stuck in front of a screen, and with lazy journalism increasingly common, it comes as no surprise for the government line to be reported on without question. Taken to extremes, we see exaggerated claims about the end of office life, the death of commuting and the rise of homeworking splashed all over the newspapers and online news providers. 

Now I’m sure there are some who’d welcome the opportunity of working from home, regardless of any lessening of risk, and also there will be some milking this for all it’s worth but, as I hinted at earlier,  companies who have rushed to transfer the majority of their employees over to working from home need to be wary, as it may prove rather difficult in persuading them to return.

As it became obvious that the pandemic was going to cause major difficulties and pose a potential serious health risk, my company took the decision to allow employees to work from home. This applied primarily to mangers, but also those members of their teams who were able to contribute from home. The bulk of our production and packing teams were furloughed, under the government scheme, but a handful of keyworkers were retained, in order to keep things ticking over, and to receive and despatch goods, as necessary.

I had a pile of laboratory test methods to work my way through, so spent seven- or eight-days sorting these out at home. Unfortunately, the company hasn’t properly equipped its staff for home working (and still hasn’t), as several of us soon discovered, so following the implementation of adequate Covod-19 safety precautions, I returned to work. I have been at my desk, or helping out in the laboratory, ever since.

Not all managers followed suit, and after a while this started to cause some resentment. This eventually turned to a rift within the firm’s management structure, a situation not helped by communication problems with those working at home. I obviously don't want to dwell on this too much, as it's an ongoing situation that needs resolving, so we'll leave it there for the time being.

From a personal viewpoint I really disliked working from home, as not only did I feel isolated, I also felt deprived of support from my colleagues. I missed having access to work facilities, such as equipment, record and publications not available electronically but most of all I missed the companionship and camaraderie of the workplace.

Working from home removes the delicate work-home balance, because when your workplace is the spare bedroom or the kitchen table, you feel as though you are never free from your job. It’s as though it has invaded your home and taken over your life. I know that during the lockdown these feelings became intolerable for many people. This piece in the Guardian sums up the situation nicely.

So, to sum up, once the pandemic is over – and it will eventually be over, I can’t see a large-scale switch to homeworking. Instead we will probably see a more flexible approach being adopted by many companies which will allow those employees who can, to spend say a couple of days working from home, but then back in the workplace for most of the week.

To explore some of the issues that could be raised by the decline of the office, it’s worth clicking on this link to Pub Curmudgeon’s site, in which he examines some of the knock-on effects that the abandonment of our city centres, would bring.

 

Contactless and seamless at the Nelson

Things must be looking up as I managed to use a Contact-Tracing App for the first time on Sunday. I'd called in, on a whim, to the Nelson Arms in Tonbridge, in the full knowledge that whilst that the pub encourages pre-booking and table reservations, I might still be able to squeeze in a cheeky pint.

I fully understand the requirement for groups to pre-book, given the restraints on space and the necessity of “social distancing” (boy do I hate that phrase),  but as someone who has spent the past 47 years just popping into a pub when I fancy a beer, this really goes against the grain. With this in mind I decided to try my luck and see whether fortune smiled on me or not.

Fortunately, lady luck was on my side that day, although by the time anyone appeared to greet me upon entering the pub, I’d already scanned the QR Code and registered my details, all online. What’s more the App seamlessly connected me to the Nelson’s Wi-Fi, meaning I could surf the net, as well as check in on Untappd.

It was pub landlord Matt who greeted me, on what was my first visit since the pub re-opened. I’d called in on several occasions during lockdown, to buy the odd takeaway container of cask, but Matt and his team had made a few alterations since then. Whilst waiting for someone to appear I sanitised my hands and perused the short list of Covid-complaint rules, pinned up for all to see. Foolishly I didn’t take any photos, but I’m sure you know the score by now.

I informed Matt I only wanted a quick pint. This was fine by him and he showed me to a vacant high table, immediately opposite the bar. This was even better as I could see what beers were available from the row of hand-pumps lined up on the bar. I opted for a pint of Yankee from Rooster’s Brewery and Matt brought it over to me, on a tray. Contactless card payment followed and at just £3.60, I enjoyed my cheapest post-lockdown pint, and the only one so far at below the four-pound price mark!

Being close to the bar I was able to chat to Matt without breaking any rules, so it was almost like old times. There weren’t that many people int the pub, although there was a group of six occupying the alcove, just along from me. There were possibly several others sitting around the corner, but I thought I ought to remain seated rather than going for a look.

This also meant I didn’t get to see the garden, which I understand had been a great hit with the regulars, especially during the recent spells of sunny weather. I will have to drag my son down there later in the week, so we can see for ourselves. If I’m honest, the Yankee wasn’t the best pint I’ve had since re-opening, and this might be due to there being six cask ales on sale.

This small grip aside, I was good to sit inside a pub for only the second time since March, as on all other post-lockdown pub visits, I’ve sat in the garden. Long may this trend continue!