Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I looked into it, and yes it is safer.


Contact-free delivery is much, much safer than lots of people coming within 2m of each other (which is what is happening in a lot of these shops).


It's not zero risk, but transmission is far less likely.


keano77 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I don?t have the answer to this but it?s quite

> possible the (brave) delivery person has visited

> several households to deliver the ordered

> food/treats so has potentially been exposed to

> numerous families from all walks of life (germs on

> gates, doorbells etc).

>

> Is that any safer than queuing orderly outside

> Odonos or William Rose?

I think the bottom line with an ice cream shop is it's clearly not essential.

One may be able to demonstrate that 'Government guidelines' don't explicitly ban ice cream shops, but come on, it's an obviously unnecessary commodity whatever anyone's guidelines say - IF you are focussed on staying safe and protecting other people too.

If the Govt explicitly state tomorrow that all ice cream shops can be open 24/7, that doesn't make it correct to do so.

Relying 100% on Govt to protect you (via their advice) is naive IMO, hospitals aren't covered with PPE yet, early guidance was pants, etc, basically these guys ain't organised whichever way you slice it.

So why the lack of common sense when considering exposure to others outside a shop (which is what this is really about) ?

When sentences contain stuff like the below, the point is being sadly missed I feel..

"what harm can it do.."

"we all have the right to..."

"Govt advice doesn't explicitly say..."

"...risk appetite..."

"..regulations not joyful enough.."

"people deserve a treat..

etc.

tomszekeres Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I looked into it, and yes it is safer.

>

> Contact-free delivery is much, much safer than

> lots of people coming within 2m of each other

> (which is what is happening in a lot of these

> shops).

>

> It's not zero risk, but transmission is far less

> likely.

>


Ok. Thanks Tom

Excellent question and makes a very solid point- if alcohol ok, why not ice cream?


If Moxons and William Rose open, why not Oddonos?


Some people eat meat, some people eat fish, some people drink alcohol and some people eat ice cream


I'm with Cyclemonkey, the ice cream shop has broken no rule at all by opening


If you choose not to go there then that's your choice, just as with the butchers and the fishmongers etc.......but for god's sake stop the finger pointing and reporting and leave the people alone to legitimately run their small business in accordance with government legislation


Best of luck to them


ctovey Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Can anyone explain the logic of off licences being

> 'essential'?

ctovey Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Can anyone explain the logic of off licences being

> 'essential'?



How about because drinking is a pretty central part of much of UK culture and if you want people to stay at home at least allow them to have a few drinks?

I see that (and personally I'm not part of the finger-pointing, reporting of small businesses crew)but alcohol can be bought in supermarkets and general stores just like ice cream can.... and meat and fish for that matter


The ice cream shop is operating completely in line with government legislation and so this thread is very unfair




???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> ctovey Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Can anyone explain the logic of off licences

> being

> > 'essential'?

>

>

> How about because drinking is a pretty central

> part of much of UK culture and if you want people

> to stay at home at least allow them to have a few

> drinks?

Yeah complete bastards, eh ?

What harm can a few more open shops and their queues do ?

We?ve already proven that as an ED population we flout distancing rules, so let?s create more places to queue and fail to keep distance.

What could possibly go wrong ?!

Oh...

When 20 people form a queue according to current guidelines that queue will be 48 meters long. Given that the average Lordy shopfront is less than 7m it would mean that approx 7 shops would have their entrances blocked.


Staff may prefer to be furloughed.

binkylilyput Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I see that (and personally I'm not part of the

> finger-pointing, reporting of small businesses

> crew)but alcohol can be bought in supermarkets and

> general stores just like ice cream can.... and

> meat and fish for that matter

>

> The ice cream shop is operating completely in line

> with government legislation and so this thread is

> very unfair

>

>

>

100% agree!

A load of delivery drivers seem to hang around outside - and the construction workers are back on most new builds now.

Rye Lane is really quite busy now. Buses are still empty but sticking to the regular schedule which is disconcerting at night and traffic seems up.


I think the lockdown is over for a group of people just like it started before the government said so. Hancock says he's OK for construction to continue and hardware stores to open


Some employers are saying they have distancing measures in place now after using this time as preparation - not sure about tube journeys etc.

What I find sad is the amount of graffiti in east Dulwich

All over local businesses

My opinion is that we all have to stick to the rules

If people want an ice cream and the business is risking it let them

Just stay safe

It?s so hard seeing our little village look so run down

It?s sad to see everything closed


Most people are being sensible and kind

Some are not

It?s all really hard for everyone

I guess we should try and communicate in a peasant way as much as we can

Bitching just isn?t what anybody needs right now

This situation has clearly given some people licence to stand in judgement of others from their lofty position of the moral high ground. This is a difficult time for everyone and people deal with it in different ways. To denigrate 'treats' or 'non-essentials', as they see them and, furthermore, taint those who may seek some comfort in them with accusations of irresponsible or reckless behaviour and a disregard for safety is mean-spirited and plain unjust. If a business is allowed to stay open and the guidelines are being observed, there is no reason in my opinion, why people should not purchase what they are selling, whatsoever that may be. To choose to have a few pleasurable moments in the midst of this terrible time is not a sin, it is actually essential for mental health. The fact that seems to offend some people is bewildering to me. I find these situations bring out the best and the worst in people. Had the Police carried through with that ridiculous threat to search people's trolleys/baskets, I have no doubt whatsoever that there would be an army of people volunteering to assist them and quite of few of them, I believe, probably use this forum.(I am not a flouter, I have observed the rules meticulously, but I confess I have had a large tub of vanilla ice cream and thoroughly enjoyed it!)

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Absolute mugs. That's what they take you for.  
    • Trossachs definitely have one! 
    • A A day-school for girls and a boarding school for boys (even with, by the late '90s, a tiny cadre of girls) are very different places.  Though there are some similarities. I think all schools, for instance, have similar "rules", much as they all nail up notices about "potential" and "achievement" and keeping to the left on the stairs. The private schools go a little further, banging on about "serving the public", as they have since they were set up (either to supply the colonies with District Commissioners, Brigadiers and Missionaries, or the provinces with railway engineers), so they've got the language and rituals down nicely. Which, i suppose, is what visitors and day-pupils expect, and are expected, to see. A boarding school, outside the cloistered hours of lesson-times, once the day-pupils and teaching staff have been sent packing, the gates and chapel safely locked and the brochures put away, becomes a much less ambassadorial place. That's largely because they're filled with several hundred bored, tired, self-supervised adolescents condemned to spend the night together in the flickering, dripping bowels of its ancient buildings, most of which were designed only to impress from the outside, the comfort of their occupants being secondary to the glory of whatever piratical benefactor had, in a last-ditch attempt to sway the judgement of their god, chucked a little of their ill-gotten at the alleged improvement of the better class of urchin. Those adolescents may, to the curious eyes of the outer world, seem privileged but, in that moment, they cannot access any outer world (at least pre-1996 or thereabouts). Their whole existence, for months at a time, takes place in uniformity behind those gates where money, should they have any to hand, cannot purchase better food or warmer clothing. In that peculiar world, there is no difference between the seventh son of a murderous sheikh, the darling child of a ball-bearing magnate, the umpteenth Viscount Smethwick, or the offspring of some hapless Foreign Office drone who's got themselves posted to Minsk. They are egalitarian, in that sense, but that's as far as it goes. In any place where rank and priviilege mean nothing, other measures will evolve, which is why even the best-intentioned of committees will, from time to time, spawn its cliques and launch heated disputes over archaic matters that, in any other context, would have long been forgotten. The same is true of the boarding school which, over the dismal centuries, has developed a certain culture all its own, with a language indended to pass all understanding and attitiudes and practices to match. This is unsurprising as every new intake will, being young and disoriented, eagerly mimic their seniors, and so also learn those words and attitudes and practices which, miserably or otherwise, will more accurately reflect the weight of history than the Guardian's style-guide and, to contemporary eyes and ears, seem outlandish, beastly and deplorably wicked. Which, of course, it all is. But however much we might regret it, and urge headteachers to get up on Sundays and preach about how we should all be tolerant, not kill anyone unnecessarily, and take pity on the oiks, it won't make the blindest bit of difference. William Golding may, according to psychologists, have overstated his case but I doubt that many 20th Century boarders would agree with them. Instead, they might look to Shakespeare, who cheerfully exploits differences of sex and race and belief and ability to arm his bullies, murderers, fraudsters and tyrants and remains celebrated to this day,  Admittedly, this is mostly opinion, borne only of my own regrettable experience and, because I had that experience and heard those words (though, being naive and small-townish, i didn't understand them till much later) and saw and suffered a heap of brutishness*, that might make my opinion both unfair and biased.  If so, then I can only say it's the least that those institutions deserve. Sure, the schools themselves don't willingly foster that culture, which is wholly contrary to everything in the brochures, but there's not much they can do about it without posting staff permanently in corridors and dormitories and washrooms, which would, I'd suggest, create a whole other set of problems, not least financial. So, like any other business, they take care of the money and keep aloof from the rest. That, to my mind, is the problem. They've turned something into a business that really shouldn't be a business. Education is one thing, raising a child is another, and limited-liability corporations, however charitable, tend not to make the best parents. And so, in retrospect, I'm inclined not to blame the students either (though, for years after, I eagerly read the my Old School magazine, my heart doing a little dance at every black-edged announcement of a yachting tragedy, avalanche or coup). They get chucked into this swamp where they have to learn to fend for themselves and so many, naturally, will behave like predators in an attempt to fit in. Not all, certainly. Some will keep their heads down and hope not to be noticed while others, if they have a particular talent, might find that it protects them. But that leaves more than enough to keep the toxic culture alive, and it is no surprise at all that when they emerge they appear damaged to the outside world. For that's exactly what they are. They might, and sometimes do, improve once returned to the normal stream of life if given time and support, and that's good. But the damage lasts, all the same, and isn't a reason to vote for them. * Not, if it helps to disappoint any lawyers, at Dulwich, though there's nothing in the allegations that I didn't instantly recognise, 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...