Bolton Wanderers Football Club Fan Forum for all BWFC Supporters.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Bolton Nuts » BWFC » Wandering Minds » Coronavirus - Was Burnham right to fight the tier 3 lockdown?

Coronavirus - Was Burnham right to fight the tier 3 lockdown?

+4
Sluffy
wanderlust
sunlight
doffcocker
8 posters

Go to page : 1, 2  Next

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 2]

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

I saw a post on ww from a poster called Gonzo which I thought outlined the problems with what's happening right now with tier 3 lockdowns - and the challenge the government has to face between public health and the economy AND the enormous and seemingly open ended costs there are to all this and how they are funded and eventually paid back.

Seems that Burnham wanted £5m more than the government would give, which considering they/we have spent numerous billions so far is chicken feed, so was all this posturing about political point scoring from a Labour mayor to a tory administration or was the government in effect saying we don't have endless cash to keep throwing at this and we have to draw the line somewhere knowing that other areas will be heading to tier 3 soon and they want funding AND nobody knows for how long all this is going on for and that ruining the economy might in general terms end up meaning that the 'cure' was far worse than the 'illness'?

Gonzo's post -

"Tier 3 strangles businesses. It bleeds the life out of them and their suppliers by keeping them open and restricting their capacity to make money. Same as the curfews effect on the late night industry.

This is what its about. Same as the hotels over this way.

Either close them down and pay for it or leave them to operate safely and make money.

There is no in-between.

Pubs cant survive on food alone. Hotels cant survive without customers. Draymen, cleaners, pub staff cant survive on 2 thirds of the their wage and their employers cant afford to top up their wages without money coming in.

How do people not get this?".

http://www.wanderersways.com/forum/topic/90620-coronavirus/?do=findComment&comment=2094481

okocha

okocha
El Hadji Diouf
El Hadji Diouf

Coronavirus - Was Burnham right to fight the tier 3 lockdown? EkzkH0FXEAYxADF
And, consider the obscene amount happily spent on HS2 to cut 20 minutes off the travel time from London to Brum



Last edited by okocha on Wed Oct 21 2020, 13:28; edited 3 times in total

wanderlust

wanderlust
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse

Both central and local government seem to agree on the point that covid should be managed at a local level rather than having a swingeing national lockdown which to me makes sense providing there is accurate and moreover timely data available on which to make local decisions.
I refer back to the point I made the other week that if such data was available, decisions on business and school closures/restrictions could be set in a framework (i.e. infections are this/we do that) which would allow decision-makers to issue warnings etc as milestones were neared - and maybe change public behaviour to avoid the further restrictions that would ensue if the milestone is reached.
This would have huge benefits including public ownership of the issue.
But it all comes back to the data - as long as we continue to have insufficient testing - and for that matter insufficient protection protocols such as compulsory temperature testing when entering any commercial, public or office premises - it will remain a dog's dinner with blame at the centre of it.

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

At the end of the day people spread the virus - it is as simple as that.

Again I dip into ww and post up two posts, one from a poster from the north and one from a poster from the south the emphasis this and contrast from individuals perspective why London/the south is seemingly dealing with the virus much better than the north has -

Peelyfleet -

"I'm fairy sure Tier 3 isn't going to be enough for many areas, if the govnt want the R rate to get below 1.

Unless folk change their behaviour.

It's not happening from what I can see

I went to the BP Garage at chequerbent last night - about 10 in, no distancing - not one had a mask on, the guy serving had it round his chin.  I was in a Garage in worsley a few hours before - same there.

I know of a welfare officer at a local kids football club who sent their son into school despite him being told to isolate for 14 days by the club ( tracing didnt get in touch so "I'm just following the guidelines")

I know of a supermarket area manager who lied about where he'd been on holiday to his employees so he didnt have to quarantine, and could go into work.

I know of mates who have holiday booked over half term out of the area - they're all still going.

It's not going to stop spreading at the same rate,  unless we reduce the amount of close contacts we make.

If we did this off our own back we wouldnt need any restrictions at all.

Folk make excuses for themselves, they think their actions will have no bearing".

http://www.wanderersways.com/forum/topic/90620-coronavirus/?do=findComment&comment=2094486

Jol_BWFC

"That's really bad. Hopefully you've seen the worst examples and it isn't like that everywhere.

My experiences down in that there (this here) London: I go to the supermarket - everyone wears a mask and makes an effort to be socially distanced. When I go to work, I go on the train and tube - everyone wears a mask (and when I travel, which is at the end of rush hour, every other seat is left empty). I fill the car up with petrol - everyone wears a mask. I meet up with friends - we do it at a park or in a garden. I might be out for drinks with mates tomorrow - we will be going to an outdoor venue and there will be 6 or fewer of us. It's shit, but that's what we need to do.

I know a load of people here who either tested positive or showed the symptoms back in March-May. It was rife. But I know of only 3 or 4 who have shown symptoms or tested positively in the last 3 or 4 months. They all self isolated immediately, until the test results came back (a couple positive and a couple negative)".

http://www.wanderersways.com/forum/topic/90620-coronavirus/?do=findComment&comment=2094522

And just to show that Londoners are not all saints either this today from Transport for London -

12:46
112,000 stopped for not wearing face coverings, says TfL boss

Transport for London (TfL) boss Andy Byford says 112,000 people were stopped on public transport in the city from 4 July to 5 October for not wearing face coverings.

Messages are on display across the network reminding people to wear them over their mouth and nose - unless they are medically exempt.

It's mandatory to wear coverings on the public transport network - and that includes inside stations, in taxis and private hire vehicles.

Byford also told a TfL board meeting today that another bus driver in the capital has died from coronavirus.

He said: "That brings the total number of colleagues who've died during the pandemic to 45, including bus drivers. It breaks my heart.

"I know it does resonate personally with you, Sadiq (London mayor Sadiq Khan), to have lost another colleague.

"We are putting every effort into making sure that lessons learned from the early part of the pandemic are embedded and we're putting a huge focus on making sure that we're fully prepared for the second wave which does appear to becoming apparent."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-54626928

And that remember is just the number they have seen to speak to, how many others must there have been?

Public behaviour by at least a hard core of people simply will not change as many believe and correctly so in the main, that even if they caught the virus in simple will not effect them, so why give up seeing your mates and having fun to protect someone's doddery old grandad you never even knew existed in the first place.

We need overwhelming public co-operation to keep the infections down and we (and most other country's in the world) simply don't have it.  

You can have the best Track and Trace system in the world but you simply can't police the whole populations behaviour unless you are in an authoritarian state such as China.

It's as simple as that.

In reply to Wanderlust, compulsory temperature testing doesn't pick up people with Covid, who are contagious, who are asymptomatic and thus it gives a false sense of safety and why it is not relied on.  

It does pick up on those showing symptoms but the majority of cases are asymptomatic.

doffcocker

doffcocker
Ivan Campo
Ivan Campo

I think the key right now is people staying away from Sky News, BBC, ITV, tabloids etc and scour the internet for people that know what they're talking about and can actually help put things into some kind of perspective.
There are so many meaningless bullshit numbers floating around at the minute, to me it's just a waste of time even watching mainstream news programmes. 
If you know to steer clear of the absolute loonies (e.g. Piers Corbyn) and the self obsessed narcissists (e.g. Piers Morgan), Youtube is full of great interviews at the moment with people that have actually thought this whole thing through without bias, without losing their shit.

I came across this one the other night, what a breath of fresh air listening to this woman:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxrG4hW3q2s

As for Andy Burnham, I don't care what his motives are, he makes valid points that too many people don't have the balls to put out there. What a guy!

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

I've been saying similar for months on here but more guardedly as I don't believe it is as black and white as she makes out.

The virus has to be 'controlled'/delayed to some extent as everyone catching at once would simply overwhelm the NHS and lead to a failure of ALL healthcare and thus deaths that could have been otherwise prevented such as cancer treatments for instance.  

If Covid makes doctors and nurses ill, they can't work.  At the same time Covid cases shoot up and take hospital beds and impact on normal day to day NHS healthcare across the board.

Similarly outside of the hospitals if all the train drivers catch it then who keeps the trains running, if all the firemen get it who puts out the fires etc, etc.

What I'm trying to say is we can't take one massive hit to get to 'equilibrium' and get back to normal life as she suggests - it has to be managed over time to get there.

It could even be seen that these regional lockdowns actually work towards that in that there intent is not to stop the virus as per the March lockdown when everything shut down but rather to keep it in check with the virus still imbedded in the community and over time moving towards this desired 'equilibrium'.

Also it's easy for the lady and myself to glibly say these things but reality is that people will die because of this strategy and far less will if we had a full lockdown again and it is the government who will be held account for that and not the lady and I.

Also you have to factor in politics, like it or not Labour will capitalise on anything they can over the governments handling of the pandemic because they want to win the next election and get in power and kick the Conservatives out.

A massive Covid hit and get it all over at once might well be the best the quickest and financially cheapest way to beat this thing but the government won't be judged on that but rather the numbers of deaths it cost to get to the equilibrium - many which would have been preventable through full or even regional lockdowns.  In short it would be political suicide.

As for Burnham, sorry but to me he's playing politics.

Merseyside, Lancashire and now South Yorkshire might have pulled their faces a bit but all agreed tier 3, so why does Burnham think he's somehow a more deserving case?

Nobody has all the right answers in dealing with this, good ideas and intentions may very well turn out to be bad idea and the wrong polices but Van Tam was saying more urgent regional measures were needed - clearly they are needed in Greater Manchester - but rather than bring them in and argue about 'just' £5m later, Burnham spied his chance to make some political capital for himself in a strongly Labour area - and thus populist backing from its residents - anyway.

The man sees himself as a future Labour prime minister imo.

Fwiw Bolton's seven day average of positive cases have gone up during the standoff of going to tier 3, if local lockdowns do prove to be effective then would it have been the best for the residents of Bolton (and presumably the rest of Greater Manchester) that they had gone in to the higher category a week or so earlier than they actually did - again Van Tam says so by stating the lockdowns are more effective the less the virus has spread in the community.

wanderlust

wanderlust
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse

I agree that Burnham is playing politics inasmuch that he felt the north was being targeted which is a political issue. When that criticism was levelled, the Government quickly applied measures to Essex and parts of London. Maybe he saw Prof.Gupta's interview? Given his responsibilities to the people he should fight his corner. Is there a fully costed local plan?

okocha

okocha
El Hadji Diouf
El Hadji Diouf

Burnham is passionate about the people he serves and is fighting for them, not for himself. He is far more convincing and honest than any of the dubious Tory characters who have shown that their word cannot be trusted.

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

wanderlust wrote:I agree that Burnham is playing politics inasmuch that he felt the north was being targeted which is a political issue. When that criticism was levelled, the Government quickly applied measures to Essex and parts of London. Maybe he saw Prof.Gupta's interview? Given his responsibilities to the people he should fight his corner. Is there a fully costed local plan?

Essex County Council ASKED to be put into tier 2 and were not 'forced' into as some 'reaction' to the government's treatment of the north.

"On Tuesday (October 13), the leader of Essex County Council asked the Health Secretary to move Essex into the Tier Two category - the 'high-level' Covid alert".

https://www.essexlive.news/news/essex-news/essex-tier-two-lockdown-health-4607978?cmpredirect=

Similarly London Mayor Sadiq Khan (Labour) was pushing for tier two as well and even supported a 'circuit break' lockdown. -

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-54520704

Don't believe all you read on social media!

Gupta's interview is also 3 weeks old (put on YouTube on 2nd October and Andrew Neil in his introduction stated the average daily number at that time to be 6,220.

Yesterday's total was 26,688.

I wonder what the average was for Greater Manchester when Burnham decided to make his political stance and what it was when he finally got overruled by the government?

Funny how Labour went to town on the government for delaying the initial national lockdown and causing so many needless deaths because of it but seem to think it is ok to do more or less the same over Manchester?

Politics is all just a big game, to score points and with the intent to gain power/keep power.

okocha

okocha
El Hadji Diouf
El Hadji Diouf

Burnham's actions were not a political stance but a stance driven by clear humanitarian concern for all the people he was elected to represent. He was bullied and blackmailed into accepting a much lower figure which even our Tory-supporting national newspapers condemned.

If only our government had the same genuine Christian concern for all its citizens.

sunlight

sunlight
Andy Walker
Andy Walker

Peterloo Massacre, in English history, the brutal dispersal by cavalry of a radical meeting held on St. Peter’s Fields in Manchester on August 16, 1819. The “massacre” (likened to Waterloo) attests to the profound fears of the privileged classes of the imminence of violent Jacobin revolution in England in the years after the Napoleonic Wars. To radicals and reformers Peterloo came to symbolize Tory callousness and tyranny.

Looking back in History books, it seems its nothing new.


The August meeting was the culmination of a series of political rallies held in 1819, a year of industrial depression and high food prices. Presided over by the radical leader Henry Hunt, the meeting was intended as a great demonstration of discontent, and its political object was parliamentary reform. About 60,000 persons attended, including a high proportion of women and children. None was armed, and their behaviour was wholly peaceable. The magistrates, who had been nervous before the event, were alarmed by the size and mood of the crowd and ordered the Manchester yeomenry to arrest the speakers immediately after the meeting had begun. The untrained yeomenry did not confine themselves to seizing the leaders but, wielding sabres, made a general attack on the crowd. The chairman of the bench of magistrates thereupon ordered the 15th Hussars and the Cheshire Volunteers to join the attack; in 10 minutes the place was cleared except for bodies. The numbers of killed and wounded were disputed; probably about 500 people were injured and 11 killed. Hunt and the other radical leaders were arrested, tried, and convicted—Hunt being sent to prison for two years.

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

So it WASN'T a political point exercise?

It certainly sounds like one to me!

Greater Manchester metro mayor Andy Burnham has said England has "devolution in name but not in reality yet" following the imposition of tier three restrictions on his region by PM Boris Johnson.

Burnham and the Westminster government struggled for more than a week to secure agreement over financial support to help businesses and low-paid workers cope with the new rules, which will see sweeping closures to hospitality and spaces like betting shops from 00:01 on Friday.

He said the lesson of this week's events was that, if the government is proposing a lockdown of businesses, the terms cannot be dictated from 200 miles away.

"Ultimately that was a point of principle that needed to be made and a stand needed to be taken," he told the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy committee.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-54641846

wanderlust

wanderlust
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse

Sluffy wrote:

Essex County Council ASKED to be put into tier 2 and were not 'forced' into as some 'reaction' to the government's treatment of the north.

"On Tuesday (October 13), the leader of Essex County Council asked the Health Secretary to move Essex into the Tier Two category - the 'high-level' Covid alert".

https://www.essexlive.news/news/essex-news/essex-tier-two-lockdown-health-4607978?cmpredirect=

Similarly London Mayor Sadiq Khan (Labour) was pushing for tier two as well and even supported a 'circuit break' lockdown. -

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-54520704

Don't believe all you read on social media!

Gupta's interview is also 3 weeks old (put on YouTube on 2nd October and Andrew Neil in his introduction stated the average daily number at that time to be 6,220.

Yesterday's total was 26,688.

I wonder what the average was for Greater Manchester when Burnham decided to make his political stance and what it was when he finally got overruled by the government?

Funny how Labour went to town on the government for delaying the initial national lockdown and causing so many needless deaths because of it but seem to think it is ok to do more or less the same over Manchester?

Politics is all just a big game, to score points and with the intent to gain power/keep power.
Essex asked to be put into Tier 2 only after Hancock told them they would be put in Tier 2 as this clearly shows.
And this occurred immediately after Manchester so in fact it seems highly likely it was a reaction to the accusation of north/south divide contrary to what you suggest.

On another note, the government has now offered GM the disputed extra £5m and Burnham today pointed out that had they done so on Tuesday none of this kerfuffle would have happened. So well done Burnham albeit taking advantage of weak, rudderless and indecisive central government that caved in.

Don't believe everything you read in Conservative Woman.

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

wanderlust wrote:
Sluffy wrote:

Essex County Council ASKED to be put into tier 2 and were not 'forced' into as some 'reaction' to the government's treatment of the north.

"On Tuesday (October 13), the leader of Essex County Council asked the Health Secretary to move Essex into the Tier Two category - the 'high-level' Covid alert".

https://www.essexlive.news/news/essex-news/essex-tier-two-lockdown-health-4607978?cmpredirect=

Similarly London Mayor Sadiq Khan (Labour) was pushing for tier two as well and even supported a 'circuit break' lockdown. -

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-54520704

Don't believe all you read on social media!

Gupta's interview is also 3 weeks old (put on YouTube on 2nd October and Andrew Neil in his introduction stated the average daily number at that time to be 6,220.

Yesterday's total was 26,688.

I wonder what the average was for Greater Manchester when Burnham decided to make his political stance and what it was when he finally got overruled by the government?

Funny how Labour went to town on the government for delaying the initial national lockdown and causing so many needless deaths because of it but seem to think it is ok to do more or less the same over Manchester?

Politics is all just a big game, to score points and with the intent to gain power/keep power.
Essex asked to be put into Tier 2 only after Hancock told them they would be put in Tier 2 as this clearly shows.
And this occurred immediately after Manchester so in fact it seems highly likely it was a reaction to the accusation of north/south divide contrary to what you suggest.

On another note, the government has now offered GM the disputed extra £5m and Burnham today pointed out that had they done so on Tuesday none of this kerfuffle would have happened. So well done Burnham albeit taking advantage of weak, rudderless and indecisive central government that caved in.

Don't believe everything you read in Conservative Woman.

???

What are you on about?

Essex CC REQUESTED to be put in tier 2 TWO DAYS at least before the Hancock video you posted - My link above is from the 13th October, Hancock spoke six days ago according to the video, thus on the 15th!!!

So how can it be 'forced' on them for 'political reasons' to presumably placate the north when they'd already requested it before he'd even spoke???

Ever thought to check a few facts before you take for gospel what you read on social media- apparently not.

As for the extra £5m from Burnham's political stance - again complete bollocks - no doubt again what you've read on social media - below explains what happened and why - nothing to do with Burnham at all!!!
Coronavirus - Was Burnham right to fight the tier 3 lockdown? _112924924__107934061_faisalislam_tr-nc

What's the background to this decision?

Almost as soon as the heads of the CBI and the TUC appeared on the steps of Number 11 Downing Street to endorse last month's Winter Economic Plan, there were some doubts about its effectiveness.

Business and union leaders were happy that some support for part-time working had been announced - itself a revolution for the UK - but the levels of support fell well short of German-style schemes. In particular, employers faced a hurdle of having to pay at least half of workers' wages.

This was not a bug in the system - it was the strategy. The Treasury wanted the scheme to lean into a process of economic restructuring to a post-Covid "new normal" and not seek to prevent those changes.

But all that was predicated on the pandemic being on the wane and the recovery assured. That has not proven to be the case, and indeed some had spotted that, even at the time of the original plan. This is an acknowledgement of gaps in that scheme and that large swathes of the economy are in survival, not restructure mode.

For the chancellor, this is a sign that he will offer the right support at the right time. Others will say that the data was going in this direction a month ago, and that some jobs have unnecessarily been lost. Hospitality businesses gathered at a south London pizza restaurant also told the chancellor of their need for help with rents from landlords - something the Treasury thinks is far more tricky than, for example, mortgage holidays.

In Greater Manchester, they will wonder why this wasn't offered to areas that were under strong social restrictions earlier. But this is a significant package worth several billion pounds, recognising the economy clearly needs support now before some inevitable fundamental changes.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-54644241


This isn't about caving into Burnham it is a rescue package for the whole country!

As it happens Burnham/Greater Manchester would have received this increase if they had gone in to tier 3 from day one (as the whole country is being supported by retrospective payments!!!

It was all about Burnham making a political move for himself, it will be interesting to see how Starmer viewed all this, I suspect in private he's absolutely fuming!

As for whatever it is you think I read, it's certainly better researched than the tripe you constantly believe from Facebook and twitter 'influencers'.

Oh but I forget you claim you never go on to social media...

Yeah right...if you say so!

okocha

okocha
El Hadji Diouf
El Hadji Diouf

Sluffy wrote:
It was all about Burnham making a political move for himself,
You're completely wrong.

 Burnham was bullied and blackmailed, using political force, to cede to a much lower amount than was costed and agreed by the Manchester leaders.

It was only at this point that Burnham was forced to make a stand, and a valid one at that! This is a man who passionately supports the vulnerable in the region he was elected to represent, whereas Boris and co. did not negotiate in good faith. They used sly, political manoevering, refusing to disclose how much had been promised to other areas. The school meals fiasco is the latest proof of a government that does not care about the under-privileged.

 We all know Boris' word cannot be trusted. His career has been built on lies, denials, distortions and bullying. I refer you to his infamous interview with Eddie Mair for evidence of his skullduggery from the very start.(Find the video of the interview online) He has continued in the same vein since becoming PM.

boltonbonce

boltonbonce
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse

I've had very little sympathy for MP's over the past few years, most of them going down in my estimation at an alarming rate.
Burnham isn't one of them. Whether dealing with Hillsborough, Constituency business, or the present crisis, he's been a doughty, empathetic, and thoughtful champion for the people he represents.

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

Iles is deemed to be esteemed and has many followers who thinks he's the best thing since sliced bread.

Doesn't mean he is though.

Burnham should have been Labour's leader instead of Corbyn.

He and all his peers were vanquished under Corbyn, they took a stand, resigned on mass from his shadow cabinet and expected him to go - but he didn't.

All of Burnham's moderate colleagues at that time have since vanished from the political scene but Burnham went down the mayoral alternative road instead (as Boris did as Mayor of London) and has established his own powerbase as such.  The chance of a head on conflict with the government was too good a political high profile chance for him not to take - he couldn't lose!

If he won he was a hero, if he lost he was a high profile Labour martyr taking a stand for 'the people'.

People need to take off their political rose coloured tinted glasses for a moment and see things for what they actually are, political game play, scheming and manoeuvring up the political ladder.

If Starmer loses the next election and resigns, who do you think will be the favourite to replace him?

Rayner who calls people scum, the Corbynista woman whose name I've already forgot who has already been kicked off the shadow cabinet, Tandy.

Can you see anyone else apart from Burnham - I can't.

If Starmer wins Burnham will probably be the Home Secretary.

That's how politics really work.

okocha

okocha
El Hadji Diouf
El Hadji Diouf

:clap:
boltonbonce wrote:I've had very little sympathy for MP's over the past few years, most of them going down in my estimation at an alarming rate.
Burnham isn't one of them. Whether dealing with Hillsborough, Constituency business, or the present crisis, he's been a doughty, empathetic, and thoughtful champion for the people he represents.
:clap:

okocha

okocha
El Hadji Diouf
El Hadji Diouf

Sluffy wrote:Iles is deemed to be esteemed and has many followers who thinks he's the best thing since sliced bread.

Doesn't mean he is though.

Burnham should have been Labour's leader instead of Corbyn.

He and all his peers were vanquished under Corbyn, they took a stand, resigned on mass from his shadow cabinet and expected him to go - but he didn't.

All of Burnham's moderate colleagues at that time have since vanished from the political scene but Burnham went down the mayoral alternative road instead (as Boris did as Mayor of London) and has established his own powerbase as such.  The chance of a head on conflict with the government was too good a political high profile chance for him not to take - he couldn't lose!

If he won he was a hero, if he lost he was a high profile Labour martyr taking a stand for 'the people'.

People need to take off their political rose coloured tinted glasses for a moment and see things for what they actually are, political game play, scheming and manoeuvring up the political ladder.

If Starmer loses the next election and resigns, who do you think will be the favourite to replace him?

Rayner who calls people scum, the Corbynista woman whose name I've already forgot who has already been kicked off the shadow cabinet, Nandy?

Can you see anyone else apart from Burnham - I can't.

If Starmer wins Burnham will probably be the Home Secretary.

That's how politics really work.

I don't blame you for being a cynic....god knows, most politicians give us little cause to think otherwise at the moment. But there are some who are principled and worthy of our esteem:-Burnham is one; Jacinda Ardern is another, diamonds amongst the sludge. 
They are manifestly compassionate, highly articulate, intelligent and capable, whereas it's a blunder a day from the cabinet....even Sunak has crashed to earth with a bang. Boris can scarcely utter a sentence without bumbling and blustering whenever he tries to think on his feet. His tutor's school report at Eton laid bare his inadequacies years ago.

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

For BONCE

Didn't know if you knew about this -

...Health Secretary Matt Hancock said in all of these areas the infection rate was over 100 per 100,000 people.

Mr Hancock also said discussions were under way over moving Warrington into the highest level of restrictions.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54643672

Stay safe mate.

Coronavirus - Was Burnham right to fight the tier 3 lockdown? Ek8uYWfXUAYB82m?format=png&name=900x900

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 2]

Go to page : 1, 2  Next

Bolton Nuts » BWFC » Wandering Minds » Coronavirus - Was Burnham right to fight the tier 3 lockdown?

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum