SIGN UP

Is This Fair?

Avatar Image
ichkeria | 14:31 Fri 23rd Oct 2020 | News
92 Answers
Or even sensible?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-54662795

Clothes are non essential for 17 days while presumably chilli sauce, for example, isn’t ...

Answers

1 to 20 of 92rss feed

1 2 3 4 Next Last

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by ichkeria. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Ridiculous.
It seems pathetic. As long as you buy some essential items, what does it matter if you buy a shirt?
in every change such as this there are winners and losers

the welsh first minister is chasing 50 per 100 000
whereas in Manchester we have 550 per 100 000
( too much kissing in the unis)
My initial response was the same as Ummmm, however I can see the logic in it regarding fairness to local shops selling non essentials being unable to open and thankfully it is only for a short time.
seems fair and sensible to me...the idea is to protect smaller businesses that have to close.
Extremely fair and sensible.
If I had a small business selling electrical appliances, or clothes for instance and was forced to close I expect I would think it was fair. If I wanted some cheap school uniform because my kids had wrecked theirs I might not. I think I would say , on balance, it's fair.
I follow Welsh newspapers on FB, judging by the comments, 99% of the people commenting have never heard of online shopping.
// it is only for a short time. //

mmmm, we'll see. several "informed sources" are forecasting this will be extended before the 9th.
If indeed it goes on longer than planned then of course some rethinking may be necessary, especially if the supermarket becomes the only outlet for certain items.

I commented on the situation as it stands.
Question Author
It seems the first minister, whom I otherwise greatly respect, has never heard of online shopping either ;-)

A well meaning idea badly thought through
Not everyone wants to do online shopping. I like to see what I'm getting and that's something you certainly can't do online. Feel the quality and the exact colour.
The aim is to encourage people to move through the shop quickly without browsing and therefore minimise contact - seems sensible to me.
^the stated aim is to protect small businesses who have to close.
With the exception of fast growing children most people have clothes, it is the browsing that's the problem I noticed during the first lockdown after a few weeks the non food sections were busier than normal with very few people taking items to buy them. It was the wander and browse that was being satisfied.
So does that mean the booze is off sale for the supermarkets, with the pubs closed???? I very much doubt it. :0)
It would be interesting to learn what percentage of transmissions shops (essential or not) are responsible for. I imagine it's pretty small. This seems one of the increasingly bizarre measures that spew forth almost daily. There four different lots of them at it and they are really making their mark - but possibly not in the way they imagine.

I wonder how far this will go? Many of the food items on offer in "essential" shops are not essential. You don't actually need doughnuts, lemonade, bottled water, cakes biscuits, and that's before you even get on to beer, wines and spirits. Are these shops going to have to split all their stock into "essential" and "non-essential"? Even in the darkest days of the first lockdown it was deemed lawful for shops which were allowed to open to sell "non-essential" goods (as Derbyshire Constabulary found out when they began checking the contents of shopper's shopping bags). If you're in the shop, you're in the shop and it scarcely makes much difference whether you pick up a tin of baked beans (which, strictly speaking, you could do without) or a new pair of socks. But it will make a difference when staff have to start arguing the toss with staff and management over what they can buy and what they can't. I think some of the thinking (if that's what it is) that is behind these schemes is bordering on a form of mental illness and urgent treatment is required for those involved. Unfortunately they won't receive it because they have not contracted Covid.
//^the stated aim is to protect small businesses who have to close.//

It's unlikely to do that because by the time they are allowed to reopen many of them will have gone skint.
Question Author
Other than the bizarreness of it, I don’t see how it achieves its object.
People who shop for what is wrongly called “nonessentials” in supermarkets, generally are people who go to supermarkets a lot. Meanwhile the people who go to the shops that now will close can simply shop online

As for browsing, have you ever noticed how long people spend loitering around and picking at the meat shelves, for example? And quite understandably too.
We all have enough clothes for the next month or so....if not longer but food stuffs are more necessary and if you had tasted my cooking you would agree that chilli sauce is often beyond essential.

1 to 20 of 92rss feed

1 2 3 4 Next Last

Do you know the answer?

Is This Fair?

Answer Question >>