The 30-person limit on the number of mourners who can attend funerals is set to end in England on May 17th, but some venues are still imposing this restriction beyond the next step of the “roadmap” out of lockdown, along with time restrictions on services. The Guardian has the story.
A grieving mother said she had “nowhere left to turn” after dozens of possible venues for a funeral service near London refused to let her invite more than 30 mourners, despite England’s coronavirus restrictions being about to change.
Stacey O’Donnell, whose 19 year-old son, Tai O’Donnell, was stabbed to death in his home in Croydon on March 3rd, said she was “shattered” by her attempts to find a venue for the service.
She had delayed the funeral until after May 17th, when the Government’s limit on mourners is to be lifted allowing any number of people to gather as long as venues can comply with social distancing. She wanted to invite 50-60 guests whose lives “had been touched by Tai”.
But dozens of sites in Croydon and the surrounding area in south London, including those with large indoor and outdoor areas that would make social distancing possible, were restricting mourners to a maximum of 30, with many also limiting the service to 30 minutes, O’Donnell said.
She said: “I have a young boy who was very much loved by a lot of people, and it just seems completely wrong that we can’t come together to remember him and give thanks for the moments we shared. I would understand if it was prior to restrictions being dropped… but vaccinations have gone out, the people who are most at risk are covered. So for people to choose to enforce these restrictions just feels wrong.”
O’Donnell had found a private venue in Surrey but it could accommodate only 30 mourners, and religious venues had also said numbers had to be limited and insisted on religious ceremonies. Many hotels, golf courses and other venues were shut until June 21st, she added.
She felt the search for a venue had taken a toll on her mental health. “It’s killing me, to be honest. It has taken so long to get him back, and now to have so many doors close in my face is just awful. I don’t feel like I’m asking for a great deal, just a space to be able to say goodbye to my baby.”
…
Deborah Smith, from the National Association of Funeral Directors, said the Association had received other reports that some councils were reluctant to allow more than 30 guests at funerals. “We urge funeral venues or councils that are taking this approach to think again,” she said.
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Fossil fuel energy generation can operate independently!
Renewables cannot operate without Fossil fuels! Fact
Nor can they manufactured and transported with fossil fuels.
Fuels from fossils don’t exist.
Hydrocarbons – abiotic energy – does exist.
It is clean, it is plentiful, it regenerates. Ergo, heretofore, it is renewable.
It’s just a bit easier to say and describe it as fossil fuel!
80% of the worlds energy comes from fossil fuels. This will not change as time goes on. Western countries getting rid of fossil fuels is politics and nothing to do with science or climate. We in the prosperous west have apparently, according to the eco socialists at the UN, used up more than our fair share of the finite resources in the ground and we are to STOP doing that. ——To impoverish their own voters with draconian climate policies western governments fully onboard with this Sustainable Development nonsense need a fairly plausible excuse.—That excuse is “climate change”——-The greatest pseudo scientific fraud ever.
Fossils don’t make fuels. Dead dinos don’t make fuel. Devonian algae and other darwinian claptrap don’t make fuel. It is abiotic and renewable – it is called hydrocarbon energy.
I think the term “fossil fuels” applies also to dead vegetation. I haven’t heard anyone argue that all fossil fuels are abiotic and none are formed from decaying plant and animal matter. Is that what you are saying?
Let’s not get bogged down in what we call coal oil and gas. That just lets the eco socialists off the hook.
It’s almost uncanny how politicians get the big intergenerational issues wrong – every time.
The climate change fiasco is one of many slow motion train crashes. Decisions made today by the Incompetent Class won’t be felt immediately and therefore there is no natural negative feedback loop. Because of this it only encourages further virtue signalling and appalling decision making.
Furthermore, even if CO2 was responsible for any very mild warming (it really isn’t) then the U.K. contribution vis-a-vis China etc is statistically negligible. So why would they punish their own populations? Also if they are against oil and choose not to use their own, why not openly criticise the world’s oil producers to prevent ‘a boiling planet’. Such double standards.
Then we have mass immigration and Covid. Not a single correct decision anywhere. Short term knee jerk reactions ahead of proper debate and planning.
The question we return to is; are most politicians really as thick’s as mince, or are they all devious gits trying to harm the country? Cock up vs Conspiracy. It’s probably a mix. What we can say with certainty: there are vanishingly few decent and intelligent MPs left in this country.
The state is incapable of doing much well and the size and scope of the state he ought to be minimised. Politicians seldom recognise the depths of their ignorance and are consumed by personal ambition and the desire to leave a legacy.
My view is it’s a conspiracy concocted by relatively few influential people at the top, but followed unswervingly by a very large flock of sheep, consisting of those who are either as thick as mince, or those whose social status/financial well-being depend on not acknowledging the lies.
Heather Mills comes to mind. This whole shit show seemed to accelerate since 2008.
“Decisions made today by the incompetent class won’t be felt immediately” ——I know what you mean but these decisions are actually being felt. Millions are now in fuel poverty because of the huge cost of renewables paid for on people’s bills. This expensive energy that has replaced affordable energy affects the cost of everything people buy causing them more misery, since everything requires energy to manufacture. ——Yet politicians and mainstream news who have simply become climate activists tell us “Renewables are now cheaper than fossil fuels”. ——This is preposterous.
I saw an analysis some weeks ago which described the rapid succession of calamities which would follow a collapse of the National Grid. I recall that water supplies would be affected quite quickly.
I would be glad if someone could give me a reference to the report.
it would be interesting to see an analysis if how the political class will respond to significant power cuts and eventual grid collapse. Presumably we will be invited to live cold so Whitehall and the glorious NHS (oh, and the BBC) can continue to operate. But a protracted period of dull, windless weather would quickly lead to permanent damage with technical difficulties in restarting all sorts of services.
public violence would likely result as water and food become scarce. The police would be incapable of controlling crowds. What would happen thereafter.
If we were lucky enough to have thrown out the political class I wonder how a rational government could replace the destroyed reliable generating capacity. Would they need to or would we, by then, have long since become an openly fascist colony of, who?
I think it will be more insidious with energy rationing, so all but the older generations remember a time when you just pressed the switch and it worked.
However, the people at the top need mass consumption to feed their coffers and mass communication to boast of their power and I am not sure how that ties in with limited supplies.
It does seem counter productive. Why would government and energy companies want you to use less of a product —“energy”. That is where the politics comes in. The politics of Sustainable Development which takes the view that affordable energy drives Industrial Capitalism, and the Liberal Progressive UN are anti capitalist. They don’t want “Free Markets” which comes from this idea that there are too many people in the world with diminishing resources (coal oil and gas)
The same people who took us into lockdown without even considering that it would have a severe economic effect, never mind calculating what that would be, cannot be expected to apply any rigour in thinking about the economic effects of the Net Zero lunacy.
Yet the British people will go out and vote for one or the other of the same bunch of evil clowns they’ve been voting for since the Idiot Blair.
I am voting for the Reform Party. It is probably our last hope. There is now a horrible personal attack on Reform from both members of the Uni-Party, but particularly the Tories. Appauling!
When I wad a youngster the UK economy was always severely constrained by “balance of payment” crises. Strangley, it seems we can now offshore whole industries and import the goods instead with no economic repercussions.
We’ve long since discarded the idea of balancing the economy. Printing money by the creation of massive debt is all the rage nowadays.
If we scaled this down to a single household the profligacy would be self evident. Fifty thousand credit cards all maxed out by the ‘adults’ with no thought for how the kids can ever handle the debts. The house would be repossessed and the house contents sold for pennies.
It’s still a problem. A massive one. But no mainstream media wish to discuss. Because dealing with it means end to Net Zero, forever wars.
They are simply ignoring the balance of payments now, and covering it up by simply printing cash. But this cash is not real, in reality it is theft of our money by means of inflation and super-high taxes. One day the pound will collapse and guess who is bankrupted? It certainly will not be politicians, but the good solid Brits who are not on welfare! Politicians keep all their takings in forign tax havens, which needs serious investigation. Where exactly did Blairs money come from, and how much tax has he paid, for example?
Why does the Climate Party get a free pass, that smooth talking charlatan who is sometimes on GB News is a pound shop Tony Blair. For him, Net 0 (Agenda 2030) is such a great opportunity, But for who!
Vote for Reform UK
. Labour got in 100 years ago so change can happen.