Jump to content

Don't Miss a Beat

Join the UK's most passionate festival community. Keep up with the latest conversations, line-up rumours, and music news.

250,000+ Members

Connect with a massive network of fellow festival-goers.

Lively Discussions

Thousands of active topics on music, campsites, and tips.

Hot Rumours & News

Hear about secret sets and lineup drops before anyone else.

Create Free Account
OR
  • Sign Up!

    Join our friendly community of music lovers and be part of the fun 😎

When will this shit end?


Chrisp1986

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, ace56blaa said:

Yeah I'm starting to get super pissed off about the christmas thing. As someone still following distancing and not going round other peoples houses. It seems so annoying it's like the people following the rules are making up for people who want free reign. If everyone was sensible about restrictions and actually followed them then we might not be talking about needed a day off for christmas. 

Furthermore yep, its such a conservative move to think christmas, is worth an extra week - month of lockdown, when we could have just had smaller christmas's. Everyone wants to see family and friends, but the more we do stupid shit like this the longer that'll take - it's just a fucking holiday, one that isn't celebrated by millions of people in this country. (saying that as someone who loves xmas)

Just thank god we're not in america where there's gonna be no enforcement of lockdowns etc until biden gets in. 

It's difficult...those who live alone...elderly etc. No easy answers...as with any of this...but, govt need to get the messaging out early if going to have restrictions over xmas, and if not what that means...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

It's difficult...those who live alone...elderly etc. No easy answers...as with any of this...but, govt need to get the messaging out early if going to have restrictions over xmas, and if not what that means...

The live alone lot are dealt with in support bubbles and obviously with people being sensible can be able to spend it with another household. Though if that household is bigger or has kids in there are still moral questions about that when some of those same people could be vaccinated in January.

The thing that makes me sad is that some of those people who spend a family Christmas who would be eligible to be vaccinated in January won't make it that far. And for what? a day?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

It's difficult...those who live alone...elderly etc. No easy answers...as with any of this...but, govt need to get the messaging out early if going to have restrictions over xmas, and if not what that means...

Yeah it's just so exhausting. Mr Bojo still unironically calling Keir Starmer, Mr Hindsight whilst we're just over a month from a big holiday for a lot of people. - People just want to know what adjustments they need to make. Will restaurants be open? could that be a safer option for larger families. - Will students be home and if so do they need to isolate before hand. So many things that could be addressed now in order to make xmas a lot safer. But we'll probably get shops open for 2 weeks before xmas and huge surge in cases in the new year and another lockdown. 

The government keeps saying they have to make hard decisions, but they only do so, when it's too late, getting all of the negative effects of a decision with less positive. Like this lockdown for example, we could have been in a much better place case and deaths wise if we locked down earlier, now we'll probably come out of lockdown too high in december, higher than June anyway. 

It's so easy to see that their priorities is taking care of their own white middle class voters, who can happily work from home, but still want to have everyone round for a 3 day christmas feast. 

How many people are struggling to buy presents for their kids, afford food day to day let alone thinking about buying a turkey, chicken or nut roast (if your cool) 

Maybe the government should give everyone a xmas present this year. Some fucking leadership clarity and support.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

The socialist campaign group are revolting. And McCluskey.  This is going to go on and on...could end up destroying Starmer as leader...and ultimately splitting labour. I guess had to happen at some point. What a hill to die on.

McCluskey doesn't have the support of (large numbers of) his members anymore though. If he hadn't already agreed to "step down" early, there'd be steps underway right now to remove him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, ace56blaa said:

Yeah it's just so exhausting. Mr Bojo still unironically calling Keir Starmer, Mr Hindsight whilst we're just over a month from a big holiday for a lot of people. - People just want to know what adjustments they need to make. Will restaurants be open? could that be a safer option for larger families. - Will students be home and if so do they need to isolate before hand. So many things that could be addressed now in order to make xmas a lot safer. But we'll probably get shops open for 2 weeks before xmas and huge surge in cases in the new year and another lockdown. 

The government keeps saying they have to make hard decisions, but they only do so, when it's too late, getting all of the negative effects of a decision with less positive. Like this lockdown for example, we could have been in a much better place case and deaths wise if we locked down earlier, now we'll probably come out of lockdown too high in december, higher than June anyway. 

It's so easy to see that their priorities is taking care of their own white middle class voters, who can happily work from home, but still want to have everyone round for a 3 day christmas feast. 

How many people are struggling to buy presents for their kids, afford food day to day let alone thinking about buying a turkey, chicken or nut roast (if your cool) 

Maybe the government should give everyone a xmas present this year. Some fucking leadership clarity and support.

its Nuts ... they should get a roasting for suggesting it goes ahead 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, efcfanwirral said:

The live alone lot are dealt with in support bubbles and obviously with people being sensible can be able to spend it with another household. Though if that household is bigger or has kids in there are still moral questions about that when some of those same people could be vaccinated in January.

The thing that makes me sad is that some of those people who spend a family Christmas who would be eligible to be vaccinated in January won't make it that far. And for what? a day?

 

I'm one of the 'live alone lot' as you so eloquently put it! So is my mum, so is my brother & so is my daughter. So I have to choose only one of them to spend xmas with? Well bollocks to that - I'm spending it with all of them & I don't give a fuck what anyone else thinks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Punksnotdead said:

I'm one of the 'live alone lot' as you so eloquently put it! So is my mum, so is my brother & so is my daughter. So I have to choose only one of them to spend xmas with? Well bollocks to that - I'm spending it with all of them & I don't give a fuck what anyone else thinks!

But you're in a situation where you can do that and keep it controlled I'm sure with the scope of ages involved everyone will be sensible and take precautions as best they can ahead of time. The rest of the children that make up this country won't or can't do this - there'll be gatherings of loads of people country wide, with some having been to parties etc over the days before and spreading the virus. That's where the problem lies - it's always going to be personal choice, but the government "lifting" restrictions will give people license to have a massive blow out instead of thinking about risk

And we'll be in lockdown for much longer than we need to. 

I honestly wish this was January in the situation we're in now - Christmas is just going to fuck it up and set us back

Edited by efcfanwirral
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, squirrelarmy said:

Tough decision to make. 
 

Would you be prepared to cancel a normal Christmas if it meant Glastonbury would go ahead. 
 

I know what I would do but I’m a miserable Grinch that hates Christmas 😂

I hate christmas and not going to glastonbury so couldn't care less.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, squirrelarmy said:

Tough decision to make. 
 

Would you be prepared to cancel a normal Christmas if it meant Glastonbury would go ahead. 
 

I know what I would do but I’m a miserable Grinch that hates Christmas 😂

It’s not tough for me ... Glastonbury wins out .... I don’t spend everyday on a forum talking about Christmas :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, crazyfool1 said:

It’s not tough for me ... Glastonbury wins out .... I don’t spend everyday on a forum talking about Christmas :) 

lolll, when you putting it like that makes us all sound insane

Edited by Chawk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thats it in a nut shell though

Most people on here would put Glastonbury as priorty over most things possibly bending rules as needed. Many people outside this fprum value Christmas in the same way. Some of it is also hype that if we can have a normal Christmas it shows we are going to be pk but mostly many many people are using this as the thing to aim for .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, squirrelarmy said:

Tough decision to make. 
 

Would you be prepared to cancel a normal Christmas if it meant Glastonbury would go ahead. 
 

I know what I would do but I’m a miserable Grinch that hates Christmas 😂

I love Christmas but love Glastonbury even more so it has to be sacrifices now for Glastonbury in the summer.

 

But it's not even about that, it's about the risks of a virus being spread round households in winter. I live on my own so I would be one of those people mentioned about that would potentially be on their own at Christmas but I would still do it because of the greater good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, danmarks said:

Thats it in a nut shell though

Most people on here would put Glastonbury as priorty over most things possibly bending rules as needed. Many people outside this fprum value Christmas in the same way. Some of it is also hype that if we can have a normal Christmas it shows we are going to be pk but mostly many many people are using this as the thing to aim for .

thing is.,,,xmas is right in the middle of this 2nd wave...will all be over by June (maybe).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, danmarks said:

Thats it in a nut shell though

Most people on here would put Glastonbury as priorty over most things possibly bending rules as needed. Many people outside this fprum value Christmas in the same way. Some of it is also hype that if we can have a normal Christmas it shows we are going to be pk but mostly many many people are using this as the thing to aim for .

But the problem is many of those people won't be able to accept when it doesn't happen because it's not safe to do. It was never realistic to aim for mid December as an end point but people have been conditioned that Christmas comes above all else. 

and I'll keep saying it - in the UK it comes above some people's lives this year. People are going to be sacrificed for Christmas. Actual lives

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, squirrelarmy said:

Think that’s pretty unanimous. It’s not just even about making sure Glastonbury goes ahead. 
 

#CancelChristmas

I want it on the record that I brought up these concerns back in the summer, on the record dammit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Latest Activity

    • Restore getting more than Lib Dems is not good.
    • https://x.com/amirtibon/status/2083054470871535853   Some thoughts on the Gaza agreement announced overnight, which despite my reservations and concerns, I hope will be implemented. 1. Donald Trump is trying to collect "wins" and "achievements" ahead of the midterm elections. His party is entering that election at a disadvantage, but because Democrats may choose weak and unpopular candidates in specific states, much like Republicans did in 2022, there's a reason for Trump to at least try achieving a surprising result like the one Biden secured four years ago.   2. The will to provide Trump such a "win" was an important motivation for all sides involved in this agreement: Hamas, Netanyahu, Qatar, Egypt, UAE and Turkey. All of them hope, each for their own reasons, that the transactional president will remember their role in the agreement and the positive media coverage it has generated and will continue to generate. You can like it or not, but that's the nature of diplomacy, especially in the Middle East, under Trump.   3. Netanyahu and his band of liars in the Israeli media (and the last few suckers in the American media still buying his spin) are already trying to oversell the agreement and present it in terms that contradict the Board of Peace statements and briefings. Of course, the October 7 Prime Minister can't just say the truth on this one, which goes something like: "I'm trying to stay on good terms with Trump ahead of an election here in Israel that will determine my personal fate and whether or not I go to jail in 2027."   4. For Hamas, the agreement is a way to buy time and survive, which is basically the organization's overarching goal since October 7. They lost most of their leadership and thousands of their fighters; they will also, I believe, give up some of their weapons to the new Gaza-based Palestinian government, which is a good thing. But at the bottom of all their decisions is a simple calculation: being able to say, "we committed the most deadly and humiliating attack against Israel since the start of the conflict, and survived as a movement and an organization to tell about it."   5. Hamas was able to say that yesterday, before the agreement was signed, and it can also say that today, after the conclusion of the negotiations. So in that regard, the agreement is preferable to the murky post-war reality that preceded it, in which Hamas was recruiting again thousands of young fighters, holding on to all its weapons, and controlling 99% of Gaza's population, making money off people buying fuel and cigarettes. Changing even a part of that terrible reality, by collecting some of the weapons and allowing progress on reconstruction under a non-Hamas government, is better. It means coming to terms with the fact that Israel under this government failed to dismantle Hamas and allowed its survival even before this agreement was signed.   6. Do I think the agreement will be fully implemented over the next 300 days, as I understand the timeline? I'm highly skeptical. But I'm also asking: what are the alternatives? Netanyahu, in his quest for political survival at all costs, ignored David Ben-Gurion's national security strategy of seeking short and decisive wars, which was based on Israel's unique internal and external challenges that make it dangerous for this country to have long wars of attrition. The result is an Israel that is hated, isolated and denounced around the world like never before, and is totally reliant on the support of one man (TRUMP) to avoid crushing international sanctions. Going to war in Gaza once again based on the same promise of "finishing Hamas," which this government failed to achieve after three long years, would have been suicidal unless Trump promised his full backing. And Trump, for good reasons, can't give such a commitment after his bitter experience with Netanyahu in Iran and Lebanon.   7. For me and my family, these are all very personal, not only political, questions. My six-year-old daughter will start school on the Gaza border in exactly one month, as we rebuild our life in the same home where Hamas tried to murder us on October 7. We've learned over the years to be highly skeptical of premature victory announcements and diplomatic celebrations. When these things collapse under the cynical realities of the conflict, most of those announcing them are not around to face the consequences. Still, I don't see a better alternative to the 20-Point Plan that Trump presented last year, at least not with Israel's current position of isolation and exhaustion under this government. So I have some hope that the agreement will succeed, even partially, and deliver a period of quiet. For us on the border, that would be significant after three years of war and trauma. And maybe in the long run, with different Israeli and Palestinian leadership, this will become a first step in a broader positive change for the region.
    • Until they're through the first round of votes there's no point believing any reports about who'll win.
    • David Byrne’s obviously got a few hits to play, but he’s not cheesy enough for the Legend Slot. Other headliner perhaps?
    • Too good for the legends slot 
  • Featured Products

  • Hot Topics

  • Latest Tourdates

×
×
  • Create New...