Youngstu

You shared the article/ report and appear (from what you've said) feel that it is a problem that needs sorting out. Why does it matter to you if minorities are over represented on our screens compared to national figures?

Thought I might lose you on that one! To put it more simply the original article states that there is an overrepresentation of minorities on TV ( in comparison to national stats) and you stated that it was completely unrepresentative of your own daily experience. I was asking what should be represented? Considering that the national picture is completely different to what I, you and ( through the calculation of an average) probably the vast majority of the population experiences in their day to day lives. So what do you think should be represented in terms of minorities ( race, sexuality etc)? Should it be the demographic of the country or where the programme is being made/set or ...?

I had a feeling that you wouldn't agree with my points of view on this! Some people feel that their own "group" should be represented the most or the best no matter what, others feel that everyone who is a member of a society should be represented. Unfortunately representation won't always be able to fit with the local or national figures. If BAME people make up 15% of the national population and that was represented in a given tv programme, that equates to 3 people in a cast of 20. Given that there are people from several different (visually identifiable?!) ethnic groups in that 15% so who do we choose to include? If the programme is based in a large city are the producers allowed to have an ethnic make up that is similar to the place it is based (maybe 50%)? Or if it's based in a rural part of the country can they choose to not include any people from other ethnic groups if that's typical of the population make up there? Should the TV channel have to tot up all of the people of different ethnic groups across all of there schedule to check that it is representative of the whole population? or should it be representative of the populations that most of the country live in, or representative of the populations of the greater area of the country? Each would have a very different figure. With regards to "subscribing to racial/ethnic stereotypes", there are massive issues associated with social problems in particular sections of our society (not just related to race) in terms of qualifications, employment, crime without real, positive intervention in terms of education, training, mentors, role models etc those issues continue and if anything get worse which has an effect on all of those in the surrounding society No I don't work for the LA, just keener than some to live in a diverse country where everyone can feel represented no matter where their family are considered to originate from.

It does make interesting reading, but is there really an issue with overrepresentation of minorities (is it a problem if there is overrepresentation) ? If minorities aren't overrepresented then it would (as in the past) seem like the token individuals being included. Where we live in the country will also determine how we view this in terms of representing what we know. Living in the South West there are relatively small numbers of BAME individuals so many programmes are unrepresentative of what I see around me, but even with overrepresentation on a national level there would be people around the country who would feel that the levels quoted in the article were underrepresenting groups that they see around them. I would argue that in all likelihood over the last half a century minorities have generally been underrepresented on screen in particular and many minorities were probably underrepresented behind the scenes too. Considering this overrepresentation at this time could be a good thing for the general population, raising the profile and importance of BAME people in the country as a whole. Its also considered to be very important for minorities to be visible in all areas of society so that children and adults from those minorities see "people like them" in different roles. This is considered by many to be very helpful in improving ambitions and motivations where others from their communities are not seen to be good role models and help towards breaking cycles of crime, antisocial behaviour etc.

Hi Lauren I'll send you a message

Some shopping could be viewed as essential activities, as such those that need to go to the shops (admittedly not all shops, but blanket guidance probably makes it easier all around). Many also need to go to the petrol station. As such everyone can go there feeling safe. You could see restaurants, pubs etc as more of a choice of those using them. Wearing masks in "essential" places allows them to be open and functioning, and employing staff. It's not perfect, there probably is no perfect solution. I can't stand the Tories, Boris, Gove etc in particular and think they've made a right mess of this whole situation, but this mask solution does seem like the right solution for the time being. It'd be interesting to know how many of the anti-mask brigade voted for the current government! you can just imagine the vitriol that'd be coming out if Labour had imposed similar measures!

I see your points about the possibilities of going for promotion etc to increase your pay after reaching the top of the scales, but I think the key issue is about effective pay cuts due to austerity. I'm not saying that the public sector needs the sympathy of those in the private sector but more that they have a valid point. In public sector areas such as education, nursing, police, military? etc do you really want the most experienced staff members to be leaving the "front line" whether that's the classroom, wards, day to day policing or military work where they may do a really good job (better than many younger, less experienced staff)? Will they be able to use their strengths at a desk/office/admin job that comes with promotion and will they necessarily make good leaders? If they choose to stay in that standard role they shouldn't expect to receive a real pay rise but surely they shouldn't accept an effective pay cut which is what has happened with below inflation pay rises year after year.

From what I understand, there is usually a top band which is reached after a certain number of years, for example teachers can reach the top of their pay scales in about 12 years. So a more experienced staff member who chose to stay in the classroom rather than chasing promotion would have had their pay stagnated for a decade. I'd imagine it's a similar scenario across other industries where pay increases with experience, that only goes so far. So in terms of majority of people in those industries their pay did increase but only as they gained experience, those who were already experienced and chose to stay in more hands on roles rather than going for more desk based jobs had pay stagnation or cuts when annual rises were below inflation.

How much of a real inconvenience is wearing a mask in a shop? Even doing a big supermarket shop you'd probably be wearing one for less than an hour in one go. When shopping you can come into brief close contact with lots of different people to the point that track and trace (if it even works) is useless and one inconsiderate and infected person going around a busy shop without a mask could potentially spread the virus to lots of different people. It may well be unlikely but wearing masks could prevent this. Like vaccines, masks have an important function of going some way towards helping to protect the most vulnerable. The majority of people (below a certain age) being vaccinated against measles for example means that those who could be vulnerable to it don't have a high risk of being infected so they don't have to shield themselves. Likewise, the majority of people in shops wearing masks and reducing the chance of transmission means that the most vulnerable don't have to stay locked away for any longer than they have done already, possibly going some way to helping their mental health too. If you have a genuine reason why you don't have to wear a mask fair enough, but if you don't why make a fuss about it?

This is why this is being classed as a conspiracy theory: And there seem to be plenty of people out there who think it is a cunning ploy to make us submissive to the government so that we will all accept mandatory vaccines for this and other diseases. Then you add on all of the additional theories about Soros, Bill Gates, Amazon, Big Pharma etc and there are multiple conspiracy theories all rolled into one. All because we are being advised to wear some kind of face covering because there is a chance that it might help (even a little bit!) reduce the transmission of a virus that's caused 45000+ deaths in this country so far.

So... you're worried about this all being a step towards a cashless society and the small businesses will have to close and the market will become dominated by the big corporations that operate online. But you're not going to go to shops that require you to wear a mask unless absolutely essential. I get it that people don't like wearing masks, it's not very pleasant and I'd much rather see everyone else's faces too, but is your brief discomfort more important than supporting your local businesses through this difficult time?

Funny that, as it seems that you're more paranoid about whoever it is trying to control our every move and needing to fight against it, but from what you've said it sounds like you've been following most of the rules or guidance that we've been set to live by even though you don't agree with them.

I know what I meant?

Maybe I'm open to different possibilities and willing to give some benefit of the doubt. For me it seems that you're very happy to say they/ you are idiots for doing this that or the other because it didn't turn out as bad as it might've been. When there was no compulsion to close/ isolate etc there was also no compensation available for those whose businesses couldn't operate but due to no customers but weren't forced to shut. If those with health conditions were able to receive compensation during forced shielding, what about those on the borderline of eligibility. It would end up like universal credit/ sickness benefit issues but potentially with more fatal consequences.

The older ( more vulnerable?) Relatives chose to come and visit us and regarding the R rate it is a factor of the number of people infected so the R rate can be high with low numbers. But I agree with you in that respect as it doesn't really seem that there was a particular point at which they decided to reduce restrictions, the scientists don't seem to have agreed with them.

So is it a bad thing that the public responded and obeyed in this instance as without that it could've been worse? We still appear to have been the worst in Europe despite having a head start on preparations with Italy, France and Spain ahead of us, but we maybe should've responded faster. What should they have done? Yes the Nightingale Hospitals didn't get much if any use, but what if it had been worse and we didn't have the additional space? A bit like life really, would you rather regret doing something that seemed like the right thing at the time, or regret not bothering trying when you thought it might be a good idea. In March when this all started over here the Virus had only been in existence/detected for 3 months, what had happened in China and the far East wasn't entirely clear and it appeared that there was a massive problem in Italy, then Spain and France. Should they just have ignored it and told us not to worry. I don't think the Government have done a good job in any way, but it seems like for completely different reasons from you. What do you think they should have done between March and now?

Similar situation here too, it's not been possible to work for me, don't live so rural so have seen people out and about but saw family today for the first time since March as we wouldn't have wanted to put them at risk. I don't personally feel that the lockdown was ludicrous and had it been imposed sooner maybe we'd have been out of it much sooner too, but hey ho at least some got to Cheltenham, footie etc before being shut at home. Do we really know the severity and long term effects of those that have been infected? do we really know what's going to happen in the next year? The time is probably time to open up but is it the right way to do it? Why wasn't the NHS overwhelmed like Italy's was, and if we hadn't locked down when we did maybe it would have been (with or without the big nightingale emergency hospitals). The mathematical models may well have got it wrong, but that's what they are, models and they can very massively by what gets put into them and nobody really knew that much about the disease, how the public would respond or how easily it would have transmitted. Should we expect a cure or medicine for new diseases? we have the technology and scientific expertise so why shouldn't we. And yes I do remember the mad cow disease problems but as I was overseas for much of it and probably not particularly interested in it at the time I don't have any recollections of the specifics of the involvements of scientists in the debacle. But if that's evidence of reasons not to trust scientists, I'd rather trust the scientists to learn from their mistakes than politicians and armchair experts.

I'm not sitting at home expecting the virus to get me, but as with most people (yourself included it seems) am continuing to take reasonable precautions to try and avoid getting infecting or infecting others. I wouldn't trust the current or previous government one bit and I most certainly haven't voted for them or at any point felt that they have the best interest of the majority of the country at heart in any way at all. How exactly is it "soft and conditioned" to put some faith in the medical discoveries and systems that have (alongside other aspects of development) allowed the population to reach an unsustainable level? By that statement I take it that you've been out and about trying your best to catch Covid just to prove that you're tough enough to deal with this "flu" and don't bother to have yourself or your family vaccinated against any other diseases that may or may not cause significant harm. It's a very valid point about the fuss being made about this when so many around the world die of preventable diseases and that's exactly the reason why it has scared people, because anyone , rich or poor could be susceptible to it (but you're much more at risk if you have underlying health issues or are from specific ethnic groups). So can we try again : Can you explain the purpose of this "propaganda" that you talk of and explain who is really generating it? Did the government and media want to cause a recession, or to cause huge numbers of job losses, or a mental health crisis, or to highlight the failings of the NHS in the state it's been left in, or to deprive children of education and social opportunities, or to increase distrust in the ruling government, or potentially crash the housing market or to get the population calling for improvements in the NHS funding or calling for a universal income.

Can you explain the purpose of this "propaganda" that you talk of and explain who is really generating it? Did the government and media want to cause a recession, or to cause huge numbers of job losses, or a mental health crisis, or to highlight the failings of the NHS in the state it's been left in, or to deprive children of education and social opportunities, or to increase distrust in the ruling government, or potentially crash the housing market or to get the population calling for improvements in the NHS funding or calling for a universal income. I'm just curious what has caused you to come to this conclusion when there have probably been more than 60000 excess deaths here and this virus is continuing to cause increasing problems around the world, particularly in countries that failed to increase anti transmission precautions early on.

So who's paying that 150k and were you all being paid for quarantining? It does sound like a massive waste of money and I assume it's considered to be very important by whoever is paying. So, if you hadn't all been quarantined and tested then worked in close proximity and someone had brought a special gift for everyone how would that have gone down with all the lads and those fitting the bill, and the HSE or whoever? I'll agree with you about Farage, he is consistent: consistently divisive, consistently getting himself publicity...

But from what I've seen we don't actually seem to know when he returned from his boot licking trip to Texas. It may be hypocritical to criticise a divisive politician whilst not criticising protesting members of the public but you wouldn't expect any more. I'd imagine that Farage would be critical of the BLM protestors for not following social distancing and putting the health of the country at risk whilst supporting the defenders of statues and the great british public crowding onto already full beaches as it supports his cause. It's the way it is and someone like Farage will always be a target for criticism (like most politicians and public figures).

And if Farage is stupid enough to get himself spotted in another country with a major Covid issue, then fail to follow the required quarantine on his return home so he could have his favourite pub based photo opportunity he can't exactly be surprised to have been "grassed up" by political opponents amongst many others. And deny having broken the rules when the available evidence shows that he did. If he didn't fair enough, but if he did, testing or not he should have the same consequences as anyone else (fine, slap on the wrist or whatever that may be).

How many years of motorbike and car accidents gave us those necessary statistics to make the decision to put helmets and seatbelts into law (I'd bet there were a fair few objections to this change at the time too, did they get through on the first attempts even with the evidence for their importance?!) We have 6 months of this virus now, loads of deaths and much worse in some countries than others (the UK is doing particularly badly in this respect and we haven't mandated the use of masks in shops etc where others have). It seems that there is a lot of advice from the scientists, doctors, medical advisers, virologists etc over here and in other countries that wearing masks in places where social distancing is difficult to maintain is a very good idea and will go some way to reducing the further spread of Covid 19. By wearing masks more, maybe the restrictions can be eased further as risks are further reduced! I don't necessarily agree with maintaining the lockdown as it does have a really negative effect on many in our society, but opening up travel, pubs, restaurants etc all on one day does seem like a bit of risky strategy. The british public don't generally do a good job of following the common sense that's expected from them. With a wet and windy "Super Saturday" is this going to make it better or worse. Not too fond of following the rules, especially when plucked out of thin air by this current bunch of incompetents and as they change their minds every 25 seconds you can't expect the instructions to remain from one week to the next.

Masks in shops, in England we don't currently have to but if we do then so be it, the government's done a fine job of cocking it all up so far, so a few sticking plasters are a bit late but wouldn't go amiss really to try and reduce further spread now we're 24 hours away from Boris's free for all, good luck reopening. How did you feel about being forced to wear a seatbelt or motorbike helmet, was that also a removal of your freedoms and rights? What about if they decided cyclists had to wear helmets. Lots choose to anyway after seeing what can happen if you don't, to protect themselves and/or save others from having to pick up the pieces after a crash. At least we can live in hope that compulsory mask wearing is likely to be a temporary measure to help people to protect themselves and others. Helmets and seatbelts don't save everyone from the effect of a crash but go some way towards it. If you look at it like masks really, or safety glasses, or ear defenders, or chainsaw gloves, or airbags, or age restrictions on selling knives) fireworks/ alcohol or .....

Sometimes it does seem that the Governments want to take more control, but not convinced this is one of them. Maybe they should have said to wear masks in shops the whole time, but they didn't and with the lack of PPE at the early stages that's possibly understandably. For the last few months we've been told not to go to shops unnecessarily and to maintain a 2m social distance at all times, wearing a mask at this point probably wouldn't achieve much more and the shops were much more empty. Now with shops getting busier and people doing less social distancing maybe this is the right time to enforce mask wearing in shops and other enclosed public spaces. The virus hasn't actually gone away (see USA) but with people travelling widely there is again more opportunity to spread it about.