Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Coronavirus in the UK - news, lockdown and discussion

scifisam said:
He would though. It wouldn't be like other people losing their kids. It wouldn't even be like Gordon Brown losing his kid or possibly even David Cameron (and they both did lose kids while in government). Brown did his best to mourn in privacy and it was shameful how the tabloids treated the situation. Cameron used his son's condition and death for political gain. He used his disabled son in arguments about cutting disability benefits, arguing for cuts, not against them, on the grounds that he knew what it was like.

Boris doesn't give a tiny shit about the kids he already has, doesn't even know how many there are, never sees them, and would use his dead baby shamelessly. The vast majority of parents, even if they're otherwise despicable people, would be utterly devastated when they lost a baby (his GF probably would be one of them) but Boris is not one of them.

Acknowledging that doesn't mean you want the unborn child to suffer. Poor fucker's going to suffer enough with the family it has.
Click to expand...
I've not heard anyone say anything about the child, but a week ago, when we were forced to go to work, a few people on my office said I hope Boris dies during childbirth. At first I was like what did you just say? but then I thought yeah, ok, I can understand that line of reasoning.
 
Raheem said:
Not really sure, but isn't the 80% just for businesses in categories that have been ordered to close?
Click to expand...
Apart from non essential retail shops, pubs clubs gyms etc - other businesses and factories haven't really been told to close. People have been told to work from home wherever possible, and workers have been told to maintain 2m distance between people (social distancing), and people in the high risk groups have been told to isolate at home, but employers haven't clearly been told to stop work (even in Italy) which makes things tricky.
 
Last edited:
Ball firmly in employers court:

1585330758294.png

So my eldest, who temps, asked his agency employer if they had any intention of engaging with this scheme and they told him no. Why would they? They don't give a fuck about their hirelings...rather than bother to engage with the state admin to retain, they'll let them apply for UC and pick up loads of (desperate) folk when their contracts pick up.
 
killer b said:
I don't know exactly what the employer has to prove to get the 80% paid to furloughed staff, but they dont have to have closed, only experienced a drop in business.
Click to expand...
Just been Googling, and it seems like it is for businesses forced to or claiming that jobs are not immediately viable. Not clear what has to be shown to prove that. Remembering that it was announced pre-lockdown, it looks like there is nothing in the case where a business just takes a decision that closing is the right thing to do. If that happens, all you have is a UC claim. Or it looks like that, anyway.
 
Proper Tidy said:
I haven't touched my car for a fortnight now, bit worried, might have to go for a drive tomorrow just to stop it dying which is fucking silly really
Click to expand...
But...on a more serious note...I'm not fucking risking it at all...Mrs B is in a very risky COPD cohort and I'm not banking on a ambulance actually turning up...if it comes to that. Sorry for the drama, but this is stressing me a bit.
 
brogdale said:
But...on a more serious note...I'm not fucking risking it at all...Mrs B is in a very risky COPD cohort and I'm not banking on a ambulance actually turning up...if it comes to that. Sorry for the drama, but this is stressing me a bit.
Click to expand...
Are you in the RAC or whatever? They are probably going to carry on working throughout, even though they're not going to be immune from staff shortages. Appreciate it's an expense.
 
brogdale said:
Ball firmly in employers court:

View attachment 203634

So my eldest, who temps, asked his agency employer if they had any intention of engaging with this scheme and they told him no. Why would they? They don't give a fuck about their hirelings...rather than bother to engage with the state admin to retain, they'll let them apply for UC and pick up loads of (desperate) folk when their contracts pick up.
Click to expand...

This comes from a fantasy world where, when an employer says "regretfully due to circumstances we must let you go, if there was any other way believe me we would take it", they actually mean it.
 
Raheem said:
Are you in the RAC or whatever? They are probably going to carry on working throughout, even though they're not going to be immune from staff shortages. Appreciate it's an expense.
Click to expand...
Yep, I've got cover with the Direct Line car ins...but, you know...I just want to know that the car will fire, if and when.
I really can't see it coming to the OB stopping folk in GL, but even if they did, the obvious answer is 'going shopping'.
So, fuck it... the car will moved fairly regularly.
 
(Actually if I was eligible I'm pretty sure my would-be employer would put me on furlough, but then I'm relatively privileged in the job market.)
 
So, realistically, it simply relies on your employer giving a shit to begin with (hollow laugh) - it doesn't protect jobs and it definitely doesn't protect people's health and/or the strain on the NHS.
So it needs enforcing, to work?
 
brogdale said:
Ball firmly in employers court:

View attachment 203634

So my eldest, who temps, asked his agency employer if they had any intention of engaging with this scheme and they told him no. Why would they? They don't give a fuck about their hirelings...rather than bother to engage with the state admin to retain, they'll let them apply for UC and pick up loads of (desperate) folk when their contracts pick up.
Click to expand...

They should, really, because they'll get 80% back. Agencies are employers and eligible for the scheme. It'd probably cost them less in the medium term than losing employees and having to redo things like DBS checks, proof driving licence, etc.

Will he be eligible for universal credit? If he's also registered as self-employed (most people I know who do some agency work are), the income floor has been dropped, for three months (possibly longer, but three months for now), which is a very bad way of putting it, but it means the govt won't assume he earns a full-time minimum wage before paying him universal credit on top.

I know everyone's having trouble getting their universal credit applications sent through right now, but it's worth bearing in mind that the eligibility date doesn't start from when you complete the application, it's from when you start it. Can't remember the limit for the application window, but IIRC it was at least a week (I think it might be 31 days but I'll say a week because I'm sure it's not less than that. It was some reasonable time lag to allow people to complete their forms). I can't find any links for that right now because there are so many other stories about universal credit.

So if you can get registered for a claim, even if you haven't submitted a full form, your claim starts from the date you started trying to claim.

It's also very important to remember that universal credit is not just the per person payment. You get some money for rent and council tax too, plus top-ups for kids. Tat seemed obvious to me, but I've seen a hell of a lot of people panicking about paying their rent out of £90 a week.
 
Raheem said:
Just been Googling, and it seems like it is for businesses forced to or claiming that jobs are not immediately viable. Not clear what has to be shown to prove that. Remembering that it was announced pre-lockdown, it looks like there is nothing in the case where a business just takes a decision that closing is the right thing to do. If that happens, all you have is a UC claim. Or it looks like that, anyway.
Click to expand...
well... I'm a little sus about how many businesses actually took that decision based purely on altruism. Plenty have said it's why they're closing, but in the vast majority of cases they'll also have experienced a catastrophic drop in business.
 
killer b said:
well... I'm a little sus about how many businesses actually took that decision based purely on altruism. Plenty have said it's why they're closing, but in the vast majority of cases they'll also have experienced a catastrophic drop in business.
Click to expand...
No doubt. But I think it's the drop in business that allows them to qualify. I don't claim that my interpretation of things is infallible. But I think Argos, for example, might find it hard to say business has been slow recently and they can't pay the wages. So they probably can't claim the 80%.
 
Raheem said:
Are you in the RAC or whatever? They are probably going to carry on working throughout, even though they're not going to be immune from staff shortages. Appreciate it's an expense.
Click to expand...
We've got to get the AA out tomorrow can the other half left his lights on and the battery is now a bit flat. I might jump start instead it and take it out for a drive in the country.
 
elbows said:
Personal protective equipment scandal has been looming for a while, looks like some background work is being done on establishing how this situation came to be exactly. The answers probably wont surprise many if this is anything to go by.

Click to expand...


Lots of very stark and disturbing new advice that our posters who work in the NHS are currently having to prepare to work with, re the lack of appropriate PPE and their ability to work without it, while it's urgent that they keep themselves as well as possible, too.
It's utterly disgraceful - both the awful position they find themselves in and the absolute cost to lives it'll undoubdtedly cause, when they will be clearly unable to treat people they otherwise could.
I know this isn't a surprise but fuck, it's grim.
 
Raheem said:
No doubt. But I think it's the drop in business that allows them to qualify. I don't claim that my interpretation of things is infallible. But I think Argos, for example, might find it hard to say business has been slow recently and they can't pay the wages. So they probably can't claim the 80%.
Click to expand...

But equally, for some smaller buisnesses, that if they can find reasons to stay open (and keep the money coming in), they might just not be arsed to claim, even while they put their own workers families/cohabitees at direct risk, when those are in the vulnerable groups - and when the gov advice is specific on them not needing to do that either.
 
On testing, btw - I got this email today (from FluSurvey, who my daughter and I signed up with a couple of years ago) -

To better understand the spread of coronavirus and improve its response, we would like to invite you to take part in a self testing survey. We will randomly select a proportion of Flusurvey participants who agree to participate as well as members of their households. If selected, you will receive a home test kit for yourself, as well as for your family members if you agree for them being tested.

The test kit(s) will contain instructions of how to self swab and should be used as soon as possible whether or not you and/or your household members are feeling unwell. Please follow the instructions and return the swab in the reply-paid envelope supplied as quickly as possible. The tests can be posted back to Public Health England using the pre-stamped return envelope included in the kit.

Please note that not everyone who agrees to participate will receive a test and the purpose of this testing is to understand the spread of coronavirus in the community. The testing survey is not designed to be an individual testing service and we may not be able to give you the result of your test. If you would like to help Public Health England better fight the spread of coronavirus and you/your household members consent to being selected to receiving home test kits, please click the link below to take part.
 
farmerbarleymow said:
Stupid fucking moronic cunts :mad:
Click to expand...
One of the two flag-flying neighbours opposite has been lighting fires over the past couple of nights and I swear I kept hearing air weapon fire ...

I assumed it was "military Land Rover man" at first, but it turned out to be "George Cross and LFC" man ...
 
sheothebudworths said:
But equally, for some smaller buisnesses, that if they can find reasons to stay open (and keep the money coming in), they might just not be arsed to claim, even while they put their own workers families/cohabitees at direct risk, when those are in the vulnerable groups - and when the gov advice is specific on them not needing to do that either.
Click to expand...
Yes, totally. I'm not trying to defend the idea of businesses staying open, other than those that really are essential.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

elbows
UK Inquiry Module 3: Impact on UK Healthcare Systems
2
Replies
53
Views
850
elbows
elbows
elbows
UK Inquiry Module 1: Resilience and preparedness
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
165
Views
5K
elbows
elbows
elbows
UK Inquiry Module 2: Decision-making & political governance
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
173
Views
4K
elbows
elbows
frogwoman
Shanghai lockdown
2
Replies
55
Views
2K
skyscraper101
skyscraper101
editor
Professional football and coronavirus
Replies
6
Views
533
elbows
elbows
Back
Top Bottom