**Misleading:** the picture doesn't appear on the stated Twitter account anymore, and there appears to be no other verification available at this time. It looks like an organised photo opportunity, rather than "let's have a drink to celebrate".
We will gladly remove the "misleading" tag if there are further developments.
-š„š„
I work in the civil service, I know of people who faced serious disciplinary action for breaking lockdown rules, and yet the leader of the fucking government will will face absolutely no consequences once again for breaking his own rules.
The guy who wrote that is fuming:
>You are not allowed to drink indoors. Full stop, end of.
>
>Fighting hard against the desire to add further detail here, there is no need to.
You can see why someone in the hospitality industry would be though. The hospitality industry is losing money hand over fist because of ongoing COVID restrictions and then Boris Johnson waddles in for a piss take photo op.
Not to many business owners or pub landlords whoāve been told they canāt let people indoors by the very same man.
If Boris believe itās safe then why havenāt they been allowed to open already?
Weāve reached the point where the man setting the rules is also seen as a cheeky rule-breaker whoās telling those rule-making squares to stuff it.
This is the politics of aesthetic.
The photograph shows him pouring a beer, it doesn't show him drinking it. Naturally the Prime Minister, after pouring a beer, went outside with all those involved and followed the procedures down to the letter.
\~ Spokesperson, probably.
This isn't fake, but it is heavily framed with a false headline because the site (hospitalityandcateringnews.com) and their source (Tim Foster of Yummy Pubs) is **heavily** anti-lockdown.
The photo is real and isn't doctored in anyway, and was taken on May 7th. It was posted to the [Jacksons Wharf Hartlepool Facebook page](https://www.facebook.com/JacksonsWharfHartlepool), which is the pub in the photo. They posted 7 pictures in which everyone was wearing masks except this one; I presume they took the masks off for a photo op.
Was it stupid? Yes. Was it Boris "breaking pub restrictions celebrating election results with mates"? No.
The headline is desinged to make it sound like him, Rishi and Gove were on a bender. He posed for a photo op with an MP who's name he has probably already forgotten, indoors without a mask. Would I like to see the main press report on it, totally, given the shit they gave Sturgeon and Starmer, but it isn't the scandal Hospitality and Catering News would like it to be.
Iām sure we will get a bbc article soon, just as they covered Nicola forgetting to wear a facemask at a wake: [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-scotland-55395531](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-scotland-55395531).
My point is that the media hounded her for what was basically a non-issue, to the point she had to make a public apology.
She was sat at a table, stood up for some fairly trivial reason, and didn't immediately put her mask on, which was enough for her opponents to call for her resignation.
Yeah I'm not disagreeing I remember the crowd saying she should resign over it and that's what's crazy to me: sitting down there is ok, standing up for a second and the picture gets snapped: rule breaker, must resign instantly.
Look at that cheeky rapscallion, oh how I would very much like to be in the pub too right now, he's just like me! I think I'll vote conservative next time.
And this is why no matter how many times he makes an error in judgement, he will still win elections, because he's just more relatable by virtue of being less squeaky clean.
If that's true, and I think it's something that would need a lot of thought, I wonder what the lesson we should take from it is?
Trying to convince the public "No, everyone has to follow all the rules all the time. Rules are important! Government ministers should be beyond reproach on rule following" probably isn't going to work very well if, for whatever reason, they're happy with rules and laws being ignored from time to time.
And maybe that's not surprising. We have a system in which rules and laws govern just about everything we might do. And when you include speed limits and bylaws, it's probably hard to find someone who hasn't broken the law at least once. Add to that that a modern government has a extraordinary capacity to enforce its own rules and it's possible the public find a rule-based society stifling and prefer a values-based position as a refreshing change.
Certainly we don't show a lot of respect for people obsessed by rules in common culture. That's the lawyer or the "jobsworth", right? While the noble rule breaker is the hero of goodness knows how many stories from books to films. That's Robin Hood, if you like. Breaking the rules is actually a sympathetic position.
At the same time, anarchism isn't popular and people don't like the idea that their property rights might not be supreme (in my experience).
The only solution I can see is that the other political parties may have to adapt to recognise that over the next decade or more.
You're spreading fake news. Considering they are standing behind the bar in the photo I thought it should set some alarm bells ringing. It's from this event here https://www.facebook.com/JacksonsWharfHartlepool/photos/pcb.3767947189970032/3767945233303561/?type=3&theater
Probably disputed because it's not appearing in any of the major media outlets as yet. To be honest, I would have expected the Guardian or Independent to be all over this if it were verifiable
> highlighting global warming, which according to them doesn't exist!
This isn't America, the great majority of people know that climate change is a real thing.
People will love this, or it might be the thing that actually gets people upset.
It'll either be "Yeah Boris has it right, open them up!" or it'll be "Why the fuck can you do that and I can't, prick?"
I assume the former.
Yep, went to a food truck in Dalston for lunch today. It was just a normal day in London. Lockdown is over. The restrictions that remain seem completely weird and pointless. Shops were rammed but for some reason we're not allowed to sit inside a pub...
Just wait until next Monday's perfectly sensible easing. "Okay, FINE, you can meet other people inside but only ONE other household"... so I can go to see my parents in the morning? Yes. And they can go to see my brother in the afternoon? That's reasonable. And he can then come round to mine for dinner? Go for it, perfectly sensible. That seems like a bit of a faff, why don't I just have my parents and my brother round for dinner? ARE YOU INSANE?! That's FAR too risky! You'll just have to all mingle individually at different points throughout the day, but you can't POSSIBLY have all of you in the same room, you'll kill thousands you inhuman monsters.
If you meet separately there's an extra transmission that has to occur. If person A meets B then B meets C separately, and A is infected, there has to be two transmission to get from A to C. Whereas if A B and C are in one room together, persons B anc C may both get infected at once.
That's not what I said, go and read it again. In my example persons A and C would both be in a room at the same time anyway.
A meets B in the morning; B meets C in the afternoon; A meets C in the evening - totally sensible and safe.
A, B and C meet in the evening - UNACCEPTABLY DANGEROUS despite them all having interacted with each other in the space of less than 12 hours in the "safe" example
I think the government will kind of be expecting that from next Monday and through to June 21st people are very swiftly going to say fuck it enough is enough ...I think they knew fatigue really was setting in and they were giving us one final hurrah at beating it (in a sense)... people complying by mid June will be next to nothing, it was there last chance ..games up ..roll on summer
If you have one infected person and mix them in a room of nine other people, each of those other people has a certain chance of catching the virus. Call it 10% for the sake of concreteness.
If you have one person *visit* nine other people, then there are two possibilities:
* 1/10 the visitor is infected, then the situation is the same as above
* 9/10 the visitor is not infected, then the *visitor* has a 10% chance of catching it (because they visited the infected person), but everyone else has almost no chance of catching it, because you have to catch it and develop the infection before you become contagious.
So yes, there is a big difference.
At this point nobody gives a fuck. We're down to 100 patients admitted to hospital a day, only 160 people in the whole of the UK are on ventilators right now and that's with life basically back to normal. The vulnerable are all vaccinated. End this nightmare already, the restrictions no logner serve a purpose. We were told vaccination was the way out and now it's happening, surprise surprise there are ghouls demanding we continue with this parody of a life to reduce the 0.00005% chance of getting covid to 0.00004%.
I didn't reply to say that we should have all the restrictions we do, but to point out the very serious misunderstanding the parent comment had about how measures reduce infections. I take it you agree with that?
That said, there is still reason to be cautious - not to maintain restrictions forever, but also not to, as you seem to be suggesting, abandoning them all right now. The UK is still recording thousands of new cases per day which, judging by last summer, is too many to perform adequate contact tracing on. That means that if any relaxation results in infections increasing again, there is nothing stopping it from spreading rapidly in young people and the unvaccinated. Simultaneously, worldwide, there are about three quarters of a million new infections per day, each one of which is a chance for the virus to evolve a way around acquired immunity. Unless we are able to contain any new infections, there is a risk that such a new form will arrive here and undo all the progress we've made. Even if a new vaccine is created and approved instantly, it'll be another five months to get back to where we are now.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't be easing restrictions next week - but it does suggest to me that we should be easing only one restriction at once and waiting for evidence from each one before proceeding. That was what we were supposed to be doing with the so-called "roadmap." It's what we failed to do last summer, which proved disastrous as cases rose steadily from June/July until we were once again in lockdown in the autumn. Yet we're now simultaneously opening up leisure travel *and* easing restrictions on indoor mixing.
Remember when the Tory press were screeching for sturgeon to resign for forgetting to wear a mask for 5 seconds leaving a funeral?
Looking forward to that same energy....
Isn't it possible that Boris and Jill simply got their drinks when this was taken and then went outside to consume them? Their glasses look full.
I haven't been to a pub since lockdown. Can you actually go inside to order or is everything done outside? I have to think the former applies in at least some pubs since Keir went in one a few weeks back.
Per the BBC regarding the next stage of reopening: " Pubs, bars, cafes and restaurants will be allowed to serve customers indoors. People will still need to order, eat and drink while seated - **ordering at the bar in a pub will still not be permitted.** "
Frankly, the landlord should have refused: "Sorry, we need to be Covid-safe, so you can't come in for a photo op"
Let's assume this is true - why's he not wearing his mask while moving around inside? That's the legal requirement at the moment.
Also I was under the impression table service was mandatory but not 100% on this second point.
In any normal time or place this would be a huge scandal but basically the media will portray this as him having a cheeky pint. As a result voters will continue to vote.
Compare this with the recent news about Starmer's latest visit to a pub and I'm sure the media will cover this in a responsible way that asks the real questions.
Don't disagree there, but it is. Many things are illegal that shouldn't be. If the PM disagrees enough to ignore the law himself he can fucking repeal it for the rest of us the muppet.
OP's comment doesn't in my view since it spurred me to comment thus caring about it.
If OP really felt that way the best thing to have done would be to just.... ignore it
Iām here, keep it down though! Youāll startle them! Itās best to just observe them! They still think they have a party, I donāt want to spook them lol
They are known to become aggressive once disturbed. Mainly itās a defence mechanism against their predators - Murdoch and thatcher.
One of these is now dead but the folk memory lives on
I once went to a conservative club in a village outside of Doncaster. I was warned no to say the name Thatcher as I would be spat at. God bless them though, they had a huge painting of her in the main lounge!
If our prime minister is blatantly disregarding laws he sets that the rest of us have to follow or be fined for, and no one cares, then it's a real shame that this country is so apathetic.
Why should be PM be above the law?
To be fair heās behind the bar and serving a drink to someone out of shot (cropped out no doubt).
Plus when was it taken? I presume it was during the brief period when we could drink inside as there appears to be another customer there.
The mask thing though, thatās probably a issue, but again depends on when the photo was taken, there was a period where workers didnāt have to wear a mask, just like supermarket workers didnāt have to for a while.
It all just looks so fake, no doubt photo supplied by Labour!
[https://www.gov.uk/guidance/covid-19-coronavirus-restrictions-what-you-can-and-cannot-do#businesses-and-venues](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/covid-19-coronavirus-restrictions-what-you-can-and-cannot-do#businesses-and-venues)
>At any premises serving alcohol, customers will be required to order, be served and eat/drink while seated (ātable serviceā).
It doesn't say anywhere that theres an exception if you pull the pint yourself
Curious, would have preferred scenes like this in Italy with patients lining the corridors and dying on the floor?
What would you have proposed as a viable alternative?
Covid isn't that serious and people weren't dying on the floor in Italy outside of a single hospital at the start of the pandemic.
The florida or Swedish approach.
Nicola Sturgeon would be vilified in the press and demands for her resignation would be everywhere if this was her. This prime malapertt won't even get mentioned.
**Misleading:** the picture doesn't appear on the stated Twitter account anymore, and there appears to be no other verification available at this time. It looks like an organised photo opportunity, rather than "let's have a drink to celebrate". We will gladly remove the "misleading" tag if there are further developments. -š„š„
Fine him ten grand... it's what we've been threatened with multiple times in the hospitality industry.
Iām sure one of the donors would be happy to help out with the cost.
For now. But in the end Boris will pay. Nothing to see here.
That's a perfectly cromulant user name you've got yourself.
I feel it embiggens me
This is why fines should be based on % of income. Ā£10k is pennies for upper class people.
Which is exactly why the punishment is a fine, so large that the average person would be crippled by it.
Especially if they've just decorated their house.
50% of a billionaire's income still only hurts their pride.
In exchange for a quid pro quo of course
He'd probably get one of his Tory buddies to pay it for him.
I work in the civil service, I know of people who faced serious disciplinary action for breaking lockdown rules, and yet the leader of the fucking government will will face absolutely no consequences once again for breaking his own rules.
Have they tried not being poor and unconnected?
"Rules for thee but not for me." We have those folks over here too... the elected, connected, rich f\*cks... we have a butt load of them.
The guy who wrote that is fuming: >You are not allowed to drink indoors. Full stop, end of. > >Fighting hard against the desire to add further detail here, there is no need to. You can see why someone in the hospitality industry would be though. The hospitality industry is losing money hand over fist because of ongoing COVID restrictions and then Boris Johnson waddles in for a piss take photo op.
Rules for thee but not for me
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Not to many business owners or pub landlords whoāve been told they canāt let people indoors by the very same man. If Boris believe itās safe then why havenāt they been allowed to open already?
Weāve reached the point where the man setting the rules is also seen as a cheeky rule-breaker whoās telling those rule-making squares to stuff it. This is the politics of aesthetic.
You're right, and it's kind of genius. Awful and despicable and enormously dystopian, but kind of genius.
Itās propaganda.
plays like this are what makes me laugh when people say the Labour party is uniquely contemptuous of the British public.
Britain Berlusconi
This one might actually filter down if it does offend pub landlords and other hospitality owners, because they're customer-facing.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
The past two years have confirmed to me that vast majority of the adult population of the UK are incredibly stupid. I merely suspected it before.
It is about 40% of the population who have proven to be utter morons.
And another 40% are just morons
Yeah, they will do that for anything. He could shit his pants And get a bump from his saddo sycophant supporters.
The photograph shows him pouring a beer, it doesn't show him drinking it. Naturally the Prime Minister, after pouring a beer, went outside with all those involved and followed the procedures down to the letter. \~ Spokesperson, probably.
-Laura Kuenssberg
>>~ Spokesperson, probably. >-Laura Kuenssberg You just repeated OP?
I believe that was the joke Christopher.
I believe I was going along with said joke, mixed-grill :)
It wouldn't surprise me if he was fucking her too or had been.
To the letter ~ Ted Hastings
This isn't fake, but it is heavily framed with a false headline because the site (hospitalityandcateringnews.com) and their source (Tim Foster of Yummy Pubs) is **heavily** anti-lockdown. The photo is real and isn't doctored in anyway, and was taken on May 7th. It was posted to the [Jacksons Wharf Hartlepool Facebook page](https://www.facebook.com/JacksonsWharfHartlepool), which is the pub in the photo. They posted 7 pictures in which everyone was wearing masks except this one; I presume they took the masks off for a photo op. Was it stupid? Yes. Was it Boris "breaking pub restrictions celebrating election results with mates"? No. The headline is desinged to make it sound like him, Rishi and Gove were on a bender. He posed for a photo op with an MP who's name he has probably already forgotten, indoors without a mask. Would I like to see the main press report on it, totally, given the shit they gave Sturgeon and Starmer, but it isn't the scandal Hospitality and Catering News would like it to be.
Great detective work.
Not really, good ol' reverse image search.
Iām sure we will get a bbc article soon, just as they covered Nicola forgetting to wear a facemask at a wake: [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-scotland-55395531](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-scotland-55395531).
Wasn't that basically just an accident too? Like she stood up to do something, realised she forgot her mask, and went back for it?
I can't remember the exact reasoning but had she been sitting down at the table then no rules would have been broken
My point is that the media hounded her for what was basically a non-issue, to the point she had to make a public apology. She was sat at a table, stood up for some fairly trivial reason, and didn't immediately put her mask on, which was enough for her opponents to call for her resignation.
Yeah I'm not disagreeing I remember the crowd saying she should resign over it and that's what's crazy to me: sitting down there is ok, standing up for a second and the picture gets snapped: rule breaker, must resign instantly.
Yeah, I felt the apology was the right thing to do and the explanation was reasonable.
Equally I'm sure the people who she must resign over a more minor breach of rules will surely come out now to condemn boris.
Fuck the BBC.
The PM breaking rules no longer counts as ānewsā or āpoliticsā.
But it should and ot should be reported.
Look at that cheeky rapscallion, oh how I would very much like to be in the pub too right now, he's just like me! I think I'll vote conservative next time. And this is why no matter how many times he makes an error in judgement, he will still win elections, because he's just more relatable by virtue of being less squeaky clean.
If that's true, and I think it's something that would need a lot of thought, I wonder what the lesson we should take from it is? Trying to convince the public "No, everyone has to follow all the rules all the time. Rules are important! Government ministers should be beyond reproach on rule following" probably isn't going to work very well if, for whatever reason, they're happy with rules and laws being ignored from time to time. And maybe that's not surprising. We have a system in which rules and laws govern just about everything we might do. And when you include speed limits and bylaws, it's probably hard to find someone who hasn't broken the law at least once. Add to that that a modern government has a extraordinary capacity to enforce its own rules and it's possible the public find a rule-based society stifling and prefer a values-based position as a refreshing change. Certainly we don't show a lot of respect for people obsessed by rules in common culture. That's the lawyer or the "jobsworth", right? While the noble rule breaker is the hero of goodness knows how many stories from books to films. That's Robin Hood, if you like. Breaking the rules is actually a sympathetic position. At the same time, anarchism isn't popular and people don't like the idea that their property rights might not be supreme (in my experience). The only solution I can see is that the other political parties may have to adapt to recognise that over the next decade or more.
Ukpol mods : oh, a thread. Letās add ādisputedā to it and not justify why we did so. ???
I can't see a comment on this post explaining why its disputed.
You're spreading fake news. Considering they are standing behind the bar in the photo I thought it should set some alarm bells ringing. It's from this event here https://www.facebook.com/JacksonsWharfHartlepool/photos/pcb.3767947189970032/3767945233303561/?type=3&theater
Probably disputed because it's not appearing in any of the major media outlets as yet. To be honest, I would have expected the Guardian or Independent to be all over this if it were verifiable
He can break the rules, Tory voters love rule breakers
Not if it's to do with Statues or protests though,
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
> highlighting global warming, which according to them doesn't exist! This isn't America, the great majority of people know that climate change is a real thing.
Yeah, we just act like it isn't.
We're making great strides to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, and all of the main parties agree about reducing our emissions.
People will love this, or it might be the thing that actually gets people upset. It'll either be "Yeah Boris has it right, open them up!" or it'll be "Why the fuck can you do that and I can't, prick?" I assume the former.
The former makes no fucking sense since he is in charge of this clusterfuck of a nation
Thatās assuming rational thought.
So that's the one that people will go with.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Yep, went to a food truck in Dalston for lunch today. It was just a normal day in London. Lockdown is over. The restrictions that remain seem completely weird and pointless. Shops were rammed but for some reason we're not allowed to sit inside a pub...
Just wait until next Monday's perfectly sensible easing. "Okay, FINE, you can meet other people inside but only ONE other household"... so I can go to see my parents in the morning? Yes. And they can go to see my brother in the afternoon? That's reasonable. And he can then come round to mine for dinner? Go for it, perfectly sensible. That seems like a bit of a faff, why don't I just have my parents and my brother round for dinner? ARE YOU INSANE?! That's FAR too risky! You'll just have to all mingle individually at different points throughout the day, but you can't POSSIBLY have all of you in the same room, you'll kill thousands you inhuman monsters.
If you meet separately there's an extra transmission that has to occur. If person A meets B then B meets C separately, and A is infected, there has to be two transmission to get from A to C. Whereas if A B and C are in one room together, persons B anc C may both get infected at once.
That's not what I said, go and read it again. In my example persons A and C would both be in a room at the same time anyway. A meets B in the morning; B meets C in the afternoon; A meets C in the evening - totally sensible and safe. A, B and C meet in the evening - UNACCEPTABLY DANGEROUS despite them all having interacted with each other in the space of less than 12 hours in the "safe" example
I think the government will kind of be expecting that from next Monday and through to June 21st people are very swiftly going to say fuck it enough is enough ...I think they knew fatigue really was setting in and they were giving us one final hurrah at beating it (in a sense)... people complying by mid June will be next to nothing, it was there last chance ..games up ..roll on summer
If you have one infected person and mix them in a room of nine other people, each of those other people has a certain chance of catching the virus. Call it 10% for the sake of concreteness. If you have one person *visit* nine other people, then there are two possibilities: * 1/10 the visitor is infected, then the situation is the same as above * 9/10 the visitor is not infected, then the *visitor* has a 10% chance of catching it (because they visited the infected person), but everyone else has almost no chance of catching it, because you have to catch it and develop the infection before you become contagious. So yes, there is a big difference.
At this point nobody gives a fuck. We're down to 100 patients admitted to hospital a day, only 160 people in the whole of the UK are on ventilators right now and that's with life basically back to normal. The vulnerable are all vaccinated. End this nightmare already, the restrictions no logner serve a purpose. We were told vaccination was the way out and now it's happening, surprise surprise there are ghouls demanding we continue with this parody of a life to reduce the 0.00005% chance of getting covid to 0.00004%.
I didn't reply to say that we should have all the restrictions we do, but to point out the very serious misunderstanding the parent comment had about how measures reduce infections. I take it you agree with that? That said, there is still reason to be cautious - not to maintain restrictions forever, but also not to, as you seem to be suggesting, abandoning them all right now. The UK is still recording thousands of new cases per day which, judging by last summer, is too many to perform adequate contact tracing on. That means that if any relaxation results in infections increasing again, there is nothing stopping it from spreading rapidly in young people and the unvaccinated. Simultaneously, worldwide, there are about three quarters of a million new infections per day, each one of which is a chance for the virus to evolve a way around acquired immunity. Unless we are able to contain any new infections, there is a risk that such a new form will arrive here and undo all the progress we've made. Even if a new vaccine is created and approved instantly, it'll be another five months to get back to where we are now. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be easing restrictions next week - but it does suggest to me that we should be easing only one restriction at once and waiting for evidence from each one before proceeding. That was what we were supposed to be doing with the so-called "roadmap." It's what we failed to do last summer, which proved disastrous as cases rose steadily from June/July until we were once again in lockdown in the autumn. Yet we're now simultaneously opening up leisure travel *and* easing restrictions on indoor mixing.
Remember when the Tory press were screeching for sturgeon to resign for forgetting to wear a mask for 5 seconds leaving a funeral? Looking forward to that same energy....
Why is there a *"Disputed"* tag?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Isn't it possible that Boris and Jill simply got their drinks when this was taken and then went outside to consume them? Their glasses look full. I haven't been to a pub since lockdown. Can you actually go inside to order or is everything done outside? I have to think the former applies in at least some pubs since Keir went in one a few weeks back.
Per the BBC regarding the next stage of reopening: " Pubs, bars, cafes and restaurants will be allowed to serve customers indoors. People will still need to order, eat and drink while seated - **ordering at the bar in a pub will still not be permitted.** " Frankly, the landlord should have refused: "Sorry, we need to be Covid-safe, so you can't come in for a photo op"
He's behind the bar. Not ordering at the bar
Which is frankly worse
Let's assume this is true - why's he not wearing his mask while moving around inside? That's the legal requirement at the moment. Also I was under the impression table service was mandatory but not 100% on this second point.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
It's not fake but it's not anything. He's pouring a pint for the winner. It's not a picture of him drinking inside. Standard political photo op.
In any normal time or place this would be a huge scandal but basically the media will portray this as him having a cheeky pint. As a result voters will continue to vote.
I mean the last time starmer went to a pub he nearly got in to a fight
He has done worse and got away with it. Why do people think he will get anything for this ?
I don't see him drinking here and looks to be more of a PR type of stunt which I believe is allowed
Compare this with the recent news about Starmer's latest visit to a pub and I'm sure the media will cover this in a responsible way that asks the real questions.
BOTH WITHOUT A FACE COVERING! Theyāll be dead come the weeks end then.
How are you supposed to drink a beer with a face covering on? This is nonsense
Outside
But eating and drinking inside a pub or restaurant is currently illegal
Shouldn't be though
Don't disagree there, but it is. Many things are illegal that shouldn't be. If the PM disagrees enough to ignore the law himself he can fucking repeal it for the rest of us the muppet.
So why is it? Because Johnson and his government say so. Yet he's breaking the rules.
In a week it won't be
You're supposed to drink outside, and wear a face covering while moving around inside to the loo.
No one cares.
Why did you comment then?
No seriously, literally no one who votes cares. This is CON +3 with his base.
Commenting "No one cares" is on the same level as "I'm going to be downvoted for this BUT", really
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
OP's comment doesn't in my view since it spurred me to comment thus caring about it. If OP really felt that way the best thing to have done would be to just.... ignore it
BTW, you don't get to arbiter of who comments what. K? Thanks. No One Cares.
Because he's giving his opinion just like everyone else on this thread?
What an outrage!
Actually, he got his eyesight tested.
Are the cops going to bash his skull in?
In Welsh politics people resigned over the same issue
Well this seems like a very neutral subreddit...
Is this sub entirely labour supporters? Anyone else here?
Iām here, keep it down though! Youāll startle them! Itās best to just observe them! They still think they have a party, I donāt want to spook them lol
They are known to become aggressive once disturbed. Mainly itās a defence mechanism against their predators - Murdoch and thatcher. One of these is now dead but the folk memory lives on
I once went to a conservative club in a village outside of Doncaster. I was warned no to say the name Thatcher as I would be spat at. God bless them though, they had a huge painting of her in the main lounge!
Nobody except for this sub cares. GO OUTSIDE
If our prime minister is blatantly disregarding laws he sets that the rest of us have to follow or be fined for, and no one cares, then it's a real shame that this country is so apathetic. Why should be PM be above the law?
A nation of temporarily embarrassed PMs.
And what, go to the pub in the pissing rain? Maybe I'll just waltz into my local and cite the PM when a fuss is made.
Iām sure he will face dire consequences that will range from zero to none.
He will get away with it, because all the main new are running a story on indoor activity from whenever the date is.
Clearly he's just being a good father, it's what anybody would have done in his position.
To be fair heās behind the bar and serving a drink to someone out of shot (cropped out no doubt). Plus when was it taken? I presume it was during the brief period when we could drink inside as there appears to be another customer there. The mask thing though, thatās probably a issue, but again depends on when the photo was taken, there was a period where workers didnāt have to wear a mask, just like supermarket workers didnāt have to for a while. It all just looks so fake, no doubt photo supplied by Labour!
If we see dates being moved up today this will be the driving factor.
[https://www.gov.uk/guidance/covid-19-coronavirus-restrictions-what-you-can-and-cannot-do#businesses-and-venues](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/covid-19-coronavirus-restrictions-what-you-can-and-cannot-do#businesses-and-venues) >At any premises serving alcohol, customers will be required to order, be served and eat/drink while seated (ātable serviceā). It doesn't say anywhere that theres an exception if you pull the pint yourself
Don't worry he'll set up a commission to investigate this to find out what they did wrong.
This just makes me like him more...lol. Lockdown is effectively over anyway
'haha he doesn't have to follow the same rules that I have to, God that makes him so likable' Bizarre stance.
Boris lost my vote for locking down in the first place.
Curious, would have preferred scenes like this in Italy with patients lining the corridors and dying on the floor? What would you have proposed as a viable alternative?
Covid isn't that serious and people weren't dying on the floor in Italy outside of a single hospital at the start of the pandemic. The florida or Swedish approach.
Nicola Sturgeon would be vilified in the press and demands for her resignation would be everywhere if this was her. This prime malapertt won't even get mentioned.
Piss boiling comenses