Something different for a change

They say a change is as good as a rest, and I’m sure they are right – whoever “they” might be, so last Sunday I swapped the glass of beer I usually enjoy with my dinner, for something a bit different.

Sunday’s choice was a bottle of vintage perry that I bought a few weeks ago in Waitrose. It was on special offer, otherwise I might not have bought it, but even if it hadn’t been reduced in price, it still represented value for money. More to the point, it turned out to be an excellent drink.

For some reason I’ve always been a little wary of both traditional cider and perry. It’s a lot to do with the strength of these drinks; perceived or actual, but my uneasiness goes back much further than that. I’ll explain exactly why in a subsequent post, but for the moment, I’m pleased to report that I really enjoyed my bottle of perry the other day.

Brewed in partnership with the renowned and long-standing cider maker, H. Weston & Sons, Waitrose’s No. 1 English Vintage Perry is produced with 100% freshly pressed pear juice obtained from a single year’s harvest – hence the name “vintage.” The juice is then matured in old oak vats, to bring out all the complex pear flavours. The result, a refreshing and lightly sparkling perry which, despite weighing in at 8% abv, is a very quaffable and easy to drink beverage and just the right accompaniment for a roast pork dinner.

Now I have had the odd glass of perry before, but from memory it was rather dry, cloudy and overall, on the rough side, so this Waitrose/Weston’s collaboration was quite an eye opener. I shall certainly be looking out for more and will be giving other brands of perry a try as well, especially as the drink is said to possess flavours that are typically more delicate than cider. 

Perry is also reputed to be harder to make than cider, which might explain the relative rarity of traditional perry.  Whatever the case, last weekend’s bottle certainly made an interesting change from my normal beer.

There was only one drawback; although the Waitrose perry didn’t taste that alcoholic, its 8.0% abv strength could very easily, catch you out – especially after a couple of bottles!

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.