If pubs really are going to be the focus of a new Covid crackdown, including a 10pm curfew, the industry is going to feel that's very unfair.
Here's why:-
[THREAD]
Figures from Public Health England show that there were 729 ARIs (acute respiratory infection) incidents in the week to 13 September that resulted in at least one positive lab test for Covid-19.
45% were in care homes
21% in education settings
18% in the workplace
8% "other"
For food outlets (including pubs), the figure was 5%. So people in hospitality feel the industry is an easy target.
Worst of all, they feel that the idea their venues present a danger isn't back up by the science. As well as the PHE figures, some point to a Swiss study...
...that suggests 27.1% of infection is in households, 1.9% in nightclubs, and 1.6 % in bars.
And all this comes on top of the feeling that the sector is already in dire straits, due to high business rates and greedy landlords squeezing hard-pressed businesses for rents.
Add into that the pressure faced by wet-led pubs (community boozers, basically) that didn't really benefit from a VAT cut on food, or Eat Out To Help Out.
Then there's the broken "beer tie" model, but that's a treatise in itself.
Whichever way you look at it, pubs will be at war with this government if it all shakes out the way it seems. The rest of the hospitality sector won't be too far behind.
I'll add one more thing to this. The head of the Night Time Industries Association, Michael Kill, pointed out to me recently that a 10pm curfew doesn't necessarily mean people going home to bed.
It means going on to house parties/raves. Where there aren't controls in place.
However, @thebeernut points me to this very good thread that suggests the data on ARIs isn't a good indicator of where infections are actually occurring. Very much worth a read, countering what the industry is saying.
Exclusive: Former Chelsea owner Roman Abramovich used offshore vehicles to fund tens of millions in football-related expenses that ought to have been paid for by the club, leaked files suggest. ⚽
Experts say Chelsea could face points deduction. 🧵
The transactions can today be revealed in detail thanks to #CyprusConfidential, a cache of 3.6m files leaked by an anonymous source to @ICIJorg and Germany’s Paper Trail Media @paper_trail_m , which shared access with the Guardian, @TBIJ and other reporting partners. 🧵
@ICIJorg @paper_trail_m @TBIJ Beneficiaries of the payments include agents linked to title-winning players and managers, club officials and even companies connected to the owners of other clubs. 🧵
I really want to watch the games though and, having written a fair bit about Qatar (links to follow), I don't feel like I'd be susceptible to sportswashing by doing so. So what can I do instead? Well... 🧵
I've come up with a sort of boycott offset instead.
I'll watch the World Cup but I won't buy anything from firms that are part or wholly owned by Qatar, such as Sainsbury's. Qatar takes £s in dividends from these businesses, as per @kayeena 🧵
I'd argue using Sainsbury's, British Airways, Heathrow, Shell, Severn Trent etc is a more direct relationship with Qatar than watching the tournament. You can watch a game and feel no differently about Qatar. You can't shop at Sainsbury's without funding Qatar's dividend. 🧵
Breaking: SkyVegas fined £1.2m for sending free casino “spins” to recovering addicts during Safer Gambling Week.
Comes at a sensitive time for the British gambling industry, which has been at pains to show it has improved its attitude to social responsibility. [1/n]
The government is in the midst of a landmark review of how the sector is regulated, with proposals due to be published in a white paper expected within weeks.
Yet major brands have been hit with a series of penalties for failing to protect vulnerable people recently. [2/n]
888 Casino, which is buying William Hill UK, was fined £9.4m last week over failings that saw customers rack up huge losses during depths of the Covid pandemic. BetVictor fined £2m a week earlier. [3/n]
Exclusive: A group of MPs, several of whom have enjoyed £000's in hospitality from the gambling industry, wrote a report about the industry's regulator, @GamRegGB. (THREAD)
Serious bodies such as the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee, have written reports about the Gambling Commission, generally finding that it's underfunded and not doing enough to oversee the industry. (2/?)
But the industry-friendly MPs, perhaps unsurprisingly, found the reverse. They criticised the regulator for trying to reduce problem gambling. In true "you couldn't make it up" fashion, they said the regulator's efforts were causing "mental harm". To the gambling industry. (3/?)
Labour's apparent lack of policy on gambling has been a little odd given a white paper is due soon.
But it's not quite as odd as the closeness between the party's last three spokespeople on gambling and the head of the gambling lobby, er...ex-Labour MP Michael Dugher. [THREAD]
Since Keir Starmer's latest reshuffle, Labour's spokesperson on gambling is Alex Davies-Jones.
She was recently a guest of the Betting & Gaming Council (BGC), headed by Michael Dugher, at a cost of £444. Throw karaoke nights into the mix too, I guess.
Before that, Labour's gambling spox was Alex Sobel. He was earnest about reform when I met him but past closeness to Michael Dugher does rather undermine the idea of a "powerful anti-gambling lobby" as one recent op-ed put it.