Forum Topic

Is it any wonder Ealing is the worst affected?

...when this gets reported?https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-54564448

Raymond Havelock ● 1655d14 Comments

The government have gone the other way and made a rule that forbids people working in social care to work at more than one institution. For people on zero hours contracts this will make working in the sector impractical and they will get work elsewhere.

Andy Jones ● 1649d

It would be interesting to see average household size for each borough. I suspect Ealing's will be markedly higher than most boroughs. It could just take one person in a HMO to infect 20 people. This is less of a problem in family groups but when the infected individual is in low paid work with no safety net further spread of the disease is inevitable. Proper financial support for people in this situation is an absolute necessity if Covid-19 is to be maintained.

Gordon Southwell ● 1650d

Yeah, and with the well known efficiency of Government, I bet there's forensic checking that they don't vote twice.

Rosco White ● 1653d

Students, like anyone with 'two places of residence', can register to vote in both places but can only vote in one of them, presumably choosing the place where their vote has the greatest impact. Perhaps the same applies to positive test results.

Peter Evans ● 1653d

Given students vote locally but don't pay council tax, we've found that one of our student offspring has been registered to vote home and away.She was told she had to be on the electoral register where she was residing as a student but could also be registered at her parental home.I've raised this before as thought it rather an anomaly that has consequences if widespread.Seems it's coming home to roost in a completely unexpected form.

Raymond Havelock ● 1654d

It's been suggested one of the reasons for the recent local increase is students being tested at Whatever university with the results being recorded at their home address.  But students are also being given as the reason for increased numbers being recorded in Whatever town itself.

Peter Evans ● 1654d

It is interesting that suddenly Ealing and Richmond are the worst affected boroughs. Richmond for example is more affluent, would have high numbers of white collar workers who work from home, are less likely to have multigenerational living. Socialising, dining and drinking to levels that are worryingly high could be the cause.

Kevin Wilson ● 1654d

As far as I am aware the Tudor Rose is the only venue to have been raided in the borough. The flouting of these rules is apparently widespread and to a degree you can understand why. A wedding booking taken a few months ago in full expectation of an improvement in the Covid-19 situation could potentially be the only thing that provides cash to pay bills. Lots of venues have made the decision to flout the rules using the 'Cummings defence'.I'm not saying this is right or that the law should not be enforced but, if it is being enforced partially and for political and economic gain, that is something that should concern us.My view is that Ealing Council is not evil and generally acts in good faith and I think it is unlikely but not impossible that they, or their enforcement officers made the report to the Met in the knowledge that the continued operation of the Tudor Rose was inconvenient to them.I'm slightly perplexed that people who spend most of the time telling us how appalling they think Ealing Council are, don't assume the worst of them in this case.

Mark Evans ● 1654d

It's quite simple. if you break the law or regulations you can expect to get caught.That's down to people either doing their citizens duty to report breaches or for it to be happened upon by enforcement officers.Unless you are implying that the local authority deliberately snitched on the event for an ulterior motive.In which case why not say that?

Raymond Havelock ● 1655d

Raymond Havelock gave a link about the wedding. If you read the article to the end you will see that there are links on the BBC site to a whole raft of other stories about fines being handed out where regulations are ignored. Are you suggesting that all these fines have only been issued because the relevant local authority wants to buy the venue and knock it down?

Sue Rowe ● 1655d

I'm surprised it doesn't give you pause for thought that these regulations are being ignored on a widescale basis but the only business the full force of the law is brought down on is one that occupies a building that the council wants to knock down for a property development.

Mark Evans ● 1655d

Cannot see what that 'angle has to do with it?Does not matter who owns the building or what is going on with it's future plans, fact is a business broke the rules, rules that are uncomfortable but in place to protect lives and like it or not the vast majority have the gumption to comply with.

Raymond Havelock ● 1655d

I'm a bit surprised that people who always think the worst of Ealing Council haven't noticed that the only venue being prosecuted for breaking a law that is being widely flouted occupy a building the Council want to redevelop. This angle isn't mentioned in the BBC coverage.

Mark Evans ● 1655d

"The venue's owner has been reported and could face a fine of up to £10,000."    "Could face "?  No. Should face - and a fine up to the maximum for such flagrant antisocial behaviour.  Why is he not named?

Andrew Farmer ● 1655d