Bel Mooney

Bel Mooney has always come across as a bit of a drama queen to me.

Poppyred

Love Bel Mooney always full of wise words and common sense.

I think she is rebelling against the rules that change on an almost daily basis...and never makes much sense.

The situation is fluid so how can the regulations be fixed and rigid?

Ranting that the rules aren’t being set for each persons convenience and individual circumstances is ranting to cause dissension and increases the chance of young people ignoring the guidelines because “Granny/Grandad hates Boris and disagrees with everything the scientists advise him to say”.

Pathetic and going to lengthen lockdown for us all. If you don’t/won’t understand the changes phone a five year old to explain them to you.

She lives in a very nice village in South Gloucestershire about 6 miles from Bath where the virus hasn’t taken such a devastating toll as elsewhere so perhaps that explains her complacency and wanting to break the rules that other’s are obeying for the sake of everyone. If she lived outside Bolton for example maybe she would have a different viewpoint.

In her village they had a helpline running during the height of lockdown for anyone who needed groceries and were staying safe at home. I know because my dd was one of the coordinators.

Maddyone I think it’s high time that shops were made to enforce the mask wearing rule. No mask, no entry. Not too difficult is it?
Well yes, I think it could be very difficult if shop workers were suddenly expected to be law enforcers too.
What would you expect them to do if a posse of stroppy teenagers, or a gang of recalcitrant grandparents, suddenly tried to force their way, maskless, into their premises?
Restrain them and make a citizen's arrest?

What if a lone maskless person gained entry to a shop and ignored requests to leave? Would the shopkeeper then be liable to prosecution because they hadn't forcibly removed them?

We have a highly trained police force who mainly police by consent. There are good reasons to not extend their powers to all and sundry, quite apart from putting an unfair burden on business owners.

And only two households. Yes, the Scottish solution is a good one.

Oh yes Suzie, I think it would be more acceptable to many people if young children under eleven were excluded from the number, with the added benefit of not spoiling Christmas for people.

Suzie, we’ve gone from a week in Brittany, to a week in Normandy, to Zakynthos, to Santorini, and finally settled on Kefalonia. The reason, no quarantine (quarantine doesn’t actually bother me, but if you have to quarantine there must be a higher rate of transmission) and a quiet little apartment out of the city, in a block of six apartments, only two will be occupied at the time of travel. It’s just because I feel it will do me good. I found full lockdown stressful as I suffer from depression, the tablets I take normally control it, but it reared it’s head during lockdown, plus with all the worry over my daughter and her husband (both doctors) but luckily the rest of the family could work from home. So we just decided to go. We only booked last week. We looked at the UK but many areas have a higher rate of infection than our own area, so decided let’s go for it, and Kefalonia it is.
Enjoy your break Suzie, and luckily the weather has improved. I’ll let you know how we get on in Kefalonia.

If children don’t count, should there be a limit on households and the children having to be part of one of the households? It gets tricky doesn’t it ? What some people seem to want to be able to do is have both parents, both sets of grandparents, and all relevant children. So you could say three households and all children. Then up pops someone who wants all ac, all their parents and in laws and all children. I just find coming up with a solution really difficult.

It’ll be interesting to get your feed back maddy. Hope it goes well, I’m not brave enough to go abroad but am having a week soon in a very very isolated English spot.

For me the important element is the potential influence Bel Mooney has on her readership.
Many people think she is (in all other respects) level headed and sensible and there may be those now who take this as a green light to do what they want.
In that respect she is entitled to her opinions but irresponsible to broadcast them in a way which is clearly likely to have a following.
Like many , I can often see little rhyme or reason in this governments poorly thought out and implemented measures. I too would like children “not to count” , I think Priti Patel’s concept of “mingling” is barking , but were I a figure in the public eye I think I should be conscious of the example I was setting.

maddy I wonder how people feel about the Scottish solution - children under 12 not counting but only 2 households? What I don’t agree with is no restrictions on meeting indoors and just relying on people bring sensible - obvs masks wouldn’t be worn indoors . I still think a line has to be drawn somewhere

I think it’s high time that shops were made to enforce the mask wearing rule. No mask, no entry. Not too difficult is it? In Greece there are no exemptions for mask wearing, including no medical reasons. That’s because a mask does not stop a person from getting enough oxygen. I’ve seen a doctor demonstrating on television, oxygen saturation the same with or without a mask. I’m going to Kefalonia tomorrow, shock, horror! I expect to wear a mask on the plane and in all public spaces, it’s their law. I respect it. Far too many people in this country are so entitled that they think the law doesn’t apply to them. It’s illegal not to wear a mask in the shops. It’s illegal to meet with more than six people. And I don’t think I’ve seen a single Gransnetter say she/he is not going to obey the law.

Both Trisher and Suzie are making valid points in actual fact. Suzie has said she agrees with the essence of the rule of six, if not the actual number, and Trisher has said she doesn’t agree with the rule of six but will follow it, and it appears that both posters are applying all the guidelines where necessary.

My thoughts are that the rule of six will penalise many families all over the country because if a couple have three children, then they can never, in the foreseeable future, actually meet together indoors or outdoors, with their grandparents. One parent, or one grandparent will need to absent themselves, so there are only six. But when the grandparent goes home, or the family return to the family home where the other other parent is, then any virus that might be present, will be potentially spread to the person who absented themselves. Not rocket science is it? And therefore not a very sensible rule, particularly when six people from different households can now meet together indoors, and those six people could be three couples, bringing the chances of infection up.

I think I’ve gone as far as I can with this with you trisher. I can never accept that promoting law breaking as a columnist in this situation is acceptable and you think it’s fine. Too many people are not following the face, hands, space guidance for me to feel safe in a lot of situations. They will not be enforced - bullying shop assistants telling you to put your mask on - cue outrage by right wing columnist.

If the policy is unreasonable and you know that the risk for your family is smaller than that many are undertaking every day suziewoozie I don't see why you shouldn't say so and that you intend not to observe it. It points out the absolute lunacy and disjointed thinking behind the actions of the government.
Why would you use a tried, tested and agreed policy of self isolation to challenge this? If you want to know I think we should be going down a route like Singapore where you have to spend 14 days in an approved hotel/hostel and have to pay for it. I think there are many people ignoring the self isolation because they need to work. But even if they did that if the consistent message had been to wear masks it would have helped a little. As it is one litle rule like this 6 isn't going to make a huge difference. How could it?

If she’d just come back from India for example and had written she wasn’t observing quarantine, woukd that be OK as well?

trisher the problem is that there are too many people not behaving as you and your family do and entitled irresponsible people like BM are deliberately inciting them and providing justification. As I’ve posted several times already, there is a huge huge difference between criticising a policy and like her abusing your position to use a ( sadly) widely read rag to proclaim your intended law breaking. Surely you can see the difference between those two,points?

So I was asked if I was deliberately doing or going to do something whih would spread the infection. Well no I'm not. In fact my standards are actually higher than lots of what is going on around me. I only use cafes where a mask is needed to go in. I don't use real money I use contactless. I wear my mask when I'm out and don't keep taking it on and off. I carry my own sanitiser. But what really annoys me and why I agree with Bel Mooney is that my family, whose only real risk are the school children in it, because the adults are being careful and are working from home, is considered a risk and not allowed to meet up. While sitting in the pub near me are groups of people who aren't taking the same precautions and in a school nearby over 20+ teenagers are sitting in a room with no masks at all, and yet this is considered OK. It's not just ineffective, it's unenforceable, and counter productive. Instead of making rules about 6 the government should be repeating the same message again and again and making sure commercial premises are actually applying the rules. Mask up, sanitise and social distance.

Equating the use of the word ‘bully’ by a two bit columnist who advocates law breaking to the use of the word ‘gutter press’ to describe a tabloid right wing paper owned by a tax dodging non domiciled member of the elite is sheer nonsense.
If and when Covid Marshalls are introduced, they will have a hard and thankless task to carry out and it ill-behoves people like BM to be already stirring up negative attitudes towards them.

Spangler I don’t understand why Lucca (and me) objecting to Bel Mooney’s use of the word ‘bully’ in regard to the Covid marshals, has anything to do with my description of the DM as ‘gutter press’ and even less, why that should justify your suggestion that Gransnet in general has double standards.
I’m guessing that your post was a long-winded way of saying that you personally don’t like the Daily Mail being described as the ‘gutter press‘.

Why don’t you just come to the point and say so?

To return to the rule of six, like most others, if this remains, Christmas as well as other family gatherings will be very different. The evidence seems to suggest that gatherings of family and close friends are places where social distancing is unlikely to be maintained. It follows that if one person has symptom free virus, the virus is likely to spread in that group. People from the group go shopping, touch surfaces, virus spreads. It isn't complicated. I don't like the idea of never having my adult children and grandchildren together for many months. WE followed the advice for four long months and we are following the current rules.
We are in area with a high level of infection. We would be wrong and irresponsible to flout the government advice. None of us vote for them by the way

Why am I being brought into this ? It was a genuine question about the writing of the article and an assumption made that Covid marshals would be bullies.

The other poster mentioned gutter press, that is her opinion.

What did you think of the article more importantly?

Bel Mooney uses a description that some forum members object to, as in: bully.

Lucca Tue 15-Sep-20 12:13:30
Thoroughly irresponsible. Also why are the Covid marshals automatically dubbed “bully”? This presumably from a DM columnist who would support our “wonderful Police” on all occasions.

But when a forum member uses a description like gutter press, nobody objects.

janeainsworth Tue 15-Sep-20 12:06:10
Iam I think it’s more than a non-campaign, I think it’s actively encouraging people to flout the guidance. I don’t like the idea of the marshals, or the suggestion that we should inform on our neighbours, but these are unprecedented times and we can’t just think of ourselves and our immediate families. Perhaps it’s unrealistic to expect responsible journalism from our gutter press though.

Double standards, or what?

I do read Bel Mooney and often wondered if the children that marry into her family just lose contact with their own family. It's a bit like the Archers, they leave their families behind once entering Ambridge apart from a couple of very brief pop ups.

Urmstongran

There you go! Your comment has just made my day Oopsminty
?

Pleased to hear it!