National Day of Reflection

TheYorkshireTerrier

TheYorkshireTerrier

Well-known member
A minute's silence and a national doorstep vigil will form part of a day of reflection to mark the anniversary of the UK's first Covid lockdown.

Prime Minister Boris Johnson is backing charity Marie Curie's plan for Tuesday 23 March, when those who have died in the pandemic will be remembered.

There will be a minute's silence at 12:00 GMT with people encouraged to light up their doorsteps that night.

www.bbc.co.uk

Covid-19: UK national day of reflection to be held on 23 March

Politicians back a charity's plan to commemorate a year since the first national restrictions began.
www.bbc.co.uk

How will you be celebrating/mourning/grieving today?

For me, I don't like to think of the loss as it just gets me so down, I haven't suffered as much as most people have throughout the last 12 months but just hearing stories of those who have leave me in a dark place. I will be holding a minute silence at 12pm and be grateful for what I still have and look forward to the coming months of *fingers crossed* easing of restrictions.
 
Carrying on as normal (well as normal as can be anyways) today. Eldest daughter is at school, missus is at work so just me and the youngest all day. Been to feed the ducks, made cakes and it's not even lunchtime yet.
 
I for one will definitely be on my doorstep at 8

I remember thinking at this time last year that things would get better .For me and others it turned into a tragic year.

I couldnt give a damn about the political side of it. I will be out.
 
The water still laps,
apparently placid,
waxing and waning
with a touchless moon

but the land is a hundred
and twenty thousand light,
with more taken fright
hiding behind locked doors.

The roads still run
and life ticks on
with we lucky ones
counting down the hours.

So in a moment’s calm
between tsunamis…

This for the fallen
whose emptychaired send-offs
echoed until sorrow
soaked into the walls.

This for their kin,
buckets of tears trying
to fill in a hole
resolutely empty.

This for the wounded,
the breathless, the scarred,
limping through nights
with no certain tomorrows.

This for the sleepless,
hanging grim onto reins
of a rampaging beast
that fights being tamed.

This for the young ones,
friendless and floundering,
flailing at hope
like a drowning man
clings to rope.

This for lost love,
lost hugs, lost time,
a year washed out to sea
as we hung onto its twine.

As we redecorate the hallways,
repaint the bedrooms of our lives,
a moment for our jewels
snatched by a wretched tide.
 
Interesting view on lockdown effectiveness, current on-going restrictions and the UK pandemic planning.

It seems that we did actually have well prepared plans for this but panicked and followed other countries into lockdown. This is a former Supreme Court Judge and not some tinfoil hat wearing internet troll.



Although to be fair he does look like Rowley Birkin QC
 
Without listening to all of it, he starts with a preposition that locking down only vulnerable groups was possible. So everything else he says subsequently is pointless. I don't go to see a Supreme Court Judge when I feel unwell and I don't go to see a Doctor if I need advice on the Law. So his opinion carries no more weight than yours or mine. A typical response on hearing a "posh accent" seems to be, "Oh he MUST know what he's talking about".

Also, it is on The Spectator site, hardly a bastion of impartial journalism is it?
 
Konrad_the_Barbarian said:
Interesting view on lockdown effectiveness, current on-going restrictions and the UK pandemic planning.

It seems that we did actually have well prepared plans for this but panicked and followed other countries into lockdown. This is a former Supreme Court Judge and not some tinfoil hat wearing internet troll.



Although to be fair he does look like Rowley Birkin QC
Click to expand...
How does being a supreme court judge give him any kind of validity when discussing a pandemic?
 
Colgates_shaving_foam said:
How does being a supreme court judge give him any kind of validity when discussing a pandemic?
Click to expand...
It shows a level of intelligence way above any posters on here for a start. Did you even play it and listen all the way through ?

I said it was an interesting view, not necessarily a correct one or one I totally agreed with.
However the fact that we (as all other countries) did have a well established and updated plans for dealing with pandemics and then threw all of these plans out of the window, following the herd in a political panic, is quite concerning.

Muttley said:
Without listening to all of it,
Click to expand...
.......... you view on it is totally irrelevant.

Muttley said:
Also, it is on The Spectator site, hardly a bastion of impartial journalism is it?
Click to expand...
As you said you didn't listen to it and no doubt don't listen to any of the excellent Andrew Neil "The Week in 60 Minutes" on Spectator TV. If you did you would find it is far more impartial than your beloved Grauniad........ or should that be The Socialist Worker.
 
Konrad_the_Barbarian said:
It shows a level of intelligence way above any posters on here for a start.
Click to expand...
No it doesn't, it shows (in all probability) a level of wealth way above any posters on here.

He likely attended a very good school and had wealthy parents who could help him during his studies and early working life things that form a very effective "glass ceiling" to the great unwashed.

This from Open Democracy:
Appointment [o the Supreme Court] is required to be solely on merit, while at the same time having regard to the need to encourage diversity. Yet the proportion of women and ethnic minorities in the judiciary in England and Wales falls far short of their proportion in the population as a whole. Only 5 of the 54 most senior judges are women and in the Supreme Court only one out of 12. None of the 54 is black. And the majority are privately and Oxbridge educated.
Click to expand...
You seem to be desperately seeking confirmation of your beliefs from someone you consider your better?
 
Muttley said:
No it doesn't, it shows (in all probability) a level of wealth way above any posters on here.

He likely attended a very good school and had wealthy parents who could help him during his studies and early working life things that form a very effective "glass ceiling" to the great unwashed.

This from Open Democracy:

You seem to be desperately seeking confirmation of your beliefs from someone you consider your better?
Click to expand...
It may well be dependant on wealth but as you point out "He likely attended a very good school and had wealthy parents who could help him during his studies and early working life things" all of which point to hime being very well educated, as does the "privately and Oxbridge educated" statement. It simply re-enforces my comment that a Supreme Court Judge would show a level of intelligence way above any posters on here for a start.
Nothing in your reply contradicts this.

Muttley said:
You seem to be desperately seeking confirmation of your beliefs from someone you consider your better?
Click to expand...
If you mean I'd rather listen to people who are educated than some thick ex miner & trade unionist then yes, you're correct, but I make my own mind up rather than seek confirmation. You should try it some time. Especially when you (as many on here) seem to be desperately seeking confirmation of your beliefs from ........... FMTTM posters. o_O
 
Muttley said:
Without listening to all of it, he starts with a preposition that locking down only vulnerable groups was possible. So everything else he says subsequently is pointless.

Also, it is on The Spectator site, hardly a bastion of impartial journalism is it?
Click to expand...
Pointless how?
Because it was another potential strategy that didn't involve putting hundreds of thousands on the dole?

Without listening to it all? Well.

Name me one bastion of impartial journalism?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top