So much wrong with this approach of trying to scare people back into the office, not least that it seems to assume that it is fair/ acceptable for bosses to sack those they don't see. What about those with caring responsibilities that aren't solved by schools reopening?
I've been going into the office for weeks, in part because I know that in my third trimester (which is about to start) it won't be safe for me to. This is the guidance from the RCOG, not that the gov seems to care about this:
There'll be many people who have major issues with returning to work: who are immunocompromised or living with someone who is, say. And to tell them: "you're more likely to get sacked" for protecting themselves/ someone else is cruel. They (and their jobs) deserve protecting
And given the understandable fear of a second spike, is this really a sensible tone to take? For many jobs, we know now working from home works. Why make the trains etc busier for those who have to travel?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
@TulipSiddiq had her car window smashed last month. She says that she stopped reporting everything but the most extreme online abuse because she wants to focus on helping her constituents and it takes up so much time dealing with threats. thetimes.co.uk/article/target…
As chair of @CommonsDCMS@julianknight15 is often approached by colleagues about online abuse and it comes up often in the surgeries he runs for MPs. A new Tory MP had a picture of his front door posted online, as well as the address of his wife's work and his children's school
A (depressing) thread about being a female journalist in 2021. Today my stalker escaped from his not-very-secure “secure” unit and has apparently come to London. Last time he turned up at my office.
It was a horrific experience and left me emotionally drained. He was on the run for days last time and afterwards my hair came out in clumps. Trying to do your job while always looking over your shoulder is exhausting.
His stalking started on twitter so since that time I’ve done less and less on here. Of course it’s one metric journalists are judged on - their social media following - but this site can be so horrific for both women and those from ethnic minorities that you fall behind.
As England opens up a little today, I wanted to write about what it’s been like to have a baby who has only known lockdown. Obviously caring for a newborn can be tough at the best of times. This is not the best of times.
My son, Finn, was born in December. Apart from medical staff, he has only been held by four people. He has close family he has never met, including his paternal grandmother, two aunts and two uncles.
A friend calls babies born in the pandemic “coronials”; I’ve been thinking of them as “zoom babies”. I’ve wondered a lot if this will have a long-term impact on them. At 15 weeks, Finn has barely seen another child’s face.
Pregnancy in the pandemic: a thread (1/ a lot). The NHS has finally changed its guidance to say women should be allowed to have their partner there 'at all times': scans, in labour ward from the start and not just for 'active labour'. I gave birth 8 days ago.
I found out I was pregnant with my first child on the day the UK went into 1st lockdown. Many people asked me how my pregnancy was going over the past few months. I’d say: “it’s not an easy time to be pregnant!” Most would reply: “it’s never an easy time!” Sure... but a pandemic?
I love the NHS. My doctor mother gave all her working life to it, my brother is now set to do the same. This is not a criticism of most of its staff who - long before Covid happened - have been people I championed in many of my columns.
A thread on no deal Brexit. This came to mind as I’m currently trying to feed a newborn, but I was in India in 2016 when Modi scrapped the 2 largest banknotes. The news had a story of a baby who died after a hospital refused to accept his parents' money google.co.uk/amp/s/www.inde…
I know far too little about Indian politics to say much on that story, but the obvious point is there can be an enormous human cost of policy decisions. governments forget that at their peril. When ministers speak of “disruption” with no deal, what is the true human cost of that?
When I was briefly asked to cover no deal brexit for @thesundaytimes last year (a friend called me the “apocalypse and sheep farming correspondent”), what struck me was that risk. The granny who can’t get her medicine; the remote community where the baby formula doesn’t arrive.
Fair to say that Charles Moore as BBC chair will not go down well with the corporation's 21,000ish staff: "This will shatter morale. People will leave, thinking: I won’t stay working here under Thatcher’s vicar on earth." thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/p…
A few extra thoughts. Early on, there was speculation it could be a tech boss to arm the BBC to take on Netflix etc. As one media source said: "You have to know what 4G and 5G are, and whether the 'Sounds' app is working - Moore won't."
In fact, he - like Dacre - is particularly untech-savvy. Though that does mean no worries about his Twitter account. He has only ever tweeted once: "Where there is discord, may I bring more of it."