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

    • I'm a bit worried by your sudden involvement on this Forum.  The former Prince Andrew is now Andrew Mountbatten Windsor Mountbatten in an anglicisation of Von Battenburg adopted by that branch of our Royal Family in 1917 due to anti-German sentiment. Another anglicisation could be simply Battenburg as in the checker board cake.  So I surmise that your are Andrew Battenburg, aka Andrew Mountbatten Windsor and that you have infiltrated social media so that the country can put the emphasis on Mandelson ather than yourself.  Bit of a failure. I don't expect an answer from police custody.  
    • We had John fit our PLYKEA kitchen (IKEA cabinets with custom doors) and would happily recommend him and Gabi to anyone. Gabi handled all communication and was brilliant throughout — responsive and happy to answer questions however detailed. John is meticulous, cares about the small details, and was a pleasure to have in the house. The carpentry required for the custom doors was done to a high standard, and he even refinished the plumbing under the sink to sit better with the new cabinets — a small touch that made a real difference. They were happy to return and tie up a few things that couldn't be finished in the time, which we appreciated. No hesitations recommending them.
    • Not sure about that. Rockets seems to have (rightly in my view) identified two key motivating elements in Mcash's defection: anger at his previous (arguably shabby) treatment and a (linked) desire to trash the Labour party, nationally and locally. The defection, timed for maximum damage, combined with the invective and moral exhibitionism of his statement counts as rather more than a "hissy fit".  I would add a third motivation of political ambition: it's not inconceivable that he has his eye on the Dulwich & West Norwood seat which is predicted to go Green.  James Barber was indulging in typical LibDem sleight of hand, claiming that Blair introduced austerity to *councils* before the coalition. This is a kind of sixth form debating point. From 1997-1999 Labour broadly stuck to Tory spending totals, meaning there was limited growth in departmental spending, including local govt grants. However local government funding rose substantially in the Noughties, especially in education and social care. It is a matter of record that real-terms local authority spending increased in the Blair / Brown years overall. So he's manifestly wrong (or only right if the focus is on 1997-1999, which would be a bizarre focus and one he didn't include in his claim) but he wasn't claiming Blair introduced austerity more widely. 
    • My view is that any party that welcomes a self-declared Marxist would merit a negative point. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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