Identified? This person posted screenshots that appear to show they are responsible for the complaint that had Vox Political’s Mike Sivier suspended from Twitter. Mike has no idea who this person is and a Twitter search provides no evidence of any contact.
You may recall that This Writer’s Twitter account was suspended before Christmas – based, I believe, on the false claims of the owner of the account shown in the image above.
I submitted a Subject Access Request to Twitter on December 12 last year, requiring it to deliver all information about the suspension to me within one calendar month.
Twitter has failed to honour that request and is therefore in breach of UK law. Twitter is not exempt from the law.
I have therefore made a complaint about Twitter to the Information Commissioner’s Office.
I don’t know whether it will do any good; the ICO’s response when the Labour Party failed to honour a SAR was absolutely hopeless.
But every little helps – right?
Have YOU donated to my crowdfunding appeal, raising funds to fight false libel claims by TV celebrities who should know better? These court cases cost a lot of money so every penny will help ensure that wealth doesn’t beat justice.
Vox Political needs your help! If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers) you can make a one-off donation here:
Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
I was a mug for voting Remain. If I'd banged the drum for Brexit I might have been in the House of Lords by now, or had a multi-million pound contract for doing something at which I had no previous experience or demonstrable ability.
He seems to have been referring to Boris Johnson’s decision to nominate arch-Brexiter Daniel Hannan for a peerage (as if Johnson hasn’t already sent far too many of his cronies to the House of Lords):
During his term as Conservative Party co-treasurer – effectively the party’s chief fundraiser – Cruddas was filmed by The Sunday Times, apparently offering access to the prime minister in return for a sizable donation: “£200,000 to £250,000 is Premier League – things will open up for you – you can ask him practically any question you want.”
Cruddas sued the newspaper for libel and won – but appeal court judges later ruled that the central allegation of the story – that Cruddas had offered “cash for access” to potential donors – was supported by the evidence.
By nominating him for a peerage, Johnson is effectively rewarding Cruddas for this behaviour – which This Writer considers to be corrupt; he was offering donors a chance to influence government policy – if the price was right.
Do Conservative voters think it’s right that the Upper House of the UK’s legislature is being filled with people connected to such corruption?
Have YOU donated to my crowdfunding appeal, raising funds to fight false libel claims by TV celebrities who should know better? These court cases cost a lot of money so every penny will help ensure that wealth doesn’t beat justice.
Vox Political needs your help! If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers) you can make a one-off donation here:
Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
Identified? This person posted screenshots that appear to show they are responsible for the complaint that had Vox Political’s Mike Sivier suspended from Twitter. Mike has no idea who this person is and a Twitter search provides no evidence of any contact.
There have been developments.
Readers of This Site will be aware that This Writer’s Twitter account was suspended on Saturday, December 12. The most likely excuse, I thought, was the link to the Vox Political article discussing the evidence used in Rachel Riley’s application to strike out my defence against her High Court libel action against me.
As you can see from the image above, it seems I was correct in that. But we’ll come to it.
On advice, I contacted Twitter to appeal against the suspension, and also submitted a Subject Access Request (SAR) for the information on which my suspension had been based.
Twitter seemed keen to help. I had to poke it about the SAR but eventually Twitter Support came back to me with a request for specific instructions, on Wednesday (December 16). I tried to provide this but the link didn’t work, so I had to demand one that did.
Then on Friday (December 18), I received the following message:
Thank you. Our record indicates that your account is not suspended. This case will now be closed.
It really won’t, you know.
Yes, my account was restored on Thursday (December 17), but it had still been unavailable to me for five days and I want to know why. I have a right to know why. Remember, Twitter never contacted me with a reason for my suspension.
I submitted a Subject Access Request, which is a legal requirement. By UK law, Twitter has one calendar month from the date I submitted my request (December 12) to honour it. No excuses. No apologies. If it fails to provide the information, Twitter will have broken the law.
I have emailed Twitter UK’s CEO, Dara Nasr, to remind him of this, along with overall boss Jack Dorsey. We’ll see what happens.
In the meantime, after my account was restored, I saw an interesting tweet in reply to one that I couldn’t see, being blocked by the account holder:
Holocaust denier and anti-Semite? For fuck’s sake. Does he think the Holocaust happened? And what did he say that was anti-Semitic?
It was clearly about me; someone had repeated the old lies that I was a Holocaust denier and an anti-Semite – so I did the necessary work and got a copy of the tweet I was blocked from seeing.
Dated December 13, it said (as you can see above):
Mike Sivier – @MidWalesMike
You sent me threats & abuse in the 2019 British election. Enjoy your Twitter suspension.
Hope Rachel and Tracy-Ann win in court. Show you as an antiSemite and Holocause Denier.
The account holder was, apparently, “Festive Fionn” – @Fionn_Grunspan.
I have no idea who this person is.
I do not recall having any contact with them and use of Twitter’s advanced search facility has produced no evidence of any such contact.
The likelihood of me sending “threats & abuse” to anybody is ridiculous. I have received threats and abuse from people; I don’t send it myself. Of course, some people may consider civilised responses to be abusive; it depends on your point of view.
As there is no evidence of me having contacted @Fionn_Grunspan for any reason at all, I am led to speculate on whether they were operating under another Twitter handle at the time of the alleged “threats & abuse” – if such an altercation every took place. That would suggest that the account holder had changed it for some reason, which in turn suggests that they had been caught doing something wrong.
Obviously “Rachel and Tracy-Ann” can’t win against me in court because “Tracy-Ann” (Oberman) is not one of the parties. It’s a small point but it indicates that this Twitter account cannot get its facts right.
Nor will they show me “as an antiSemite and Holocaust Denier”. Riley’s case against me is a claim that I libelled her and has nothing to do with anti-Semitism or Holocaust denial. In any case, claims that I was a Holocaust denier have been demonstrated to be lies and The Sunday Times (principally; other newspapers had to do the same) published a lengthy correction after having wrongly accused me of it, in early 2019.
Is Twitter trying to protect this – apparent – liar? If so, why?
Have YOU donated to my crowdfunding appeal, raising funds to fight false libel claims by TV celebrities who should know better? These court cases cost a lot of money so every penny will help ensure that wealth doesn’t beat justice.
Vox Political needs your help! If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers) you can make a one-off donation here:
Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
A load of bull: how many people believe the childish chatter the Tories give us every day in place of facts?
Public patience with the lies of Boris Johnson’s Conservative government is running out.
The latest revelation of their duplicity – that supposedly confidential information provided by people who use the Tories’ silly ‘contact tracing’ app is being passed to the police – has triggered a wave of social media posts under the hashtag #ToryLiars.
Here’s the story that triggered it:
Coronavirus: Police get access to NHS Test and Trace self-isolation data. And this is why I never downloaded it. Another breach of trust by the #ToryLiars and another step towards a police state. https://t.co/aOQj2EmGF4
It states that there is a legal requirement for contacts of people who’ve had a positive Covid-19 test to self-isolate for 14 days, but fewer than 11 per cent are actually doing so.
Police are being given their identity details in order to chase up enforcement.
Reasons given for breaking self-isolation include believing there was no point isolating from strangers if you cannot properly distance from those in your household; not developing symptoms; or visiting shops or a pharmacy.
Obviously the second excuse is made by idiots; we’ve already been told symptoms may develop over a period of up to 14 days, so failure to see them before the full period is over is no excuse for ending self-isolation.
But the point about not isolating from strangers if you can’t isolate from other members of your household who don’t have to self-isolate under Tory government rules is a good one. I have said before that, if symptoms develop, then the housemates may have spent many days merrily spreading the virus.
And my own knowledge of friends and family who were told to “shield” from the virus by isolating themselves while healthy is enough for me to understand why people have been forced to give up self-isolation to buy food and/or seek medication.
It isn’t a failure of intelligence because it was easy to see these problems coming and while I do believe our government ministers are stupid, I don’t believe they were not warned. I think they chose to ignore those warnings and left people to struggle – and spread the virus.
You see, a partial lockdown is as useless as no lockdown at all, when you’re trying to contain a disease.
So the Tories have created a situation where their own failure to create proper conditions for self-isolation has created a need for police enforcement that should not be there.
The public know this and resent it. Hence the charge that the Tories have lied about the app’s confidentiality.
I know some have pointed out that no information on the app itself is being shared – just registration details – but of course people hand those details over in order to use the app so it is a very flimsy excuse.
The claim that this is a lie has led to further comments on other recent Tory lies. And there have been a lot of them:
#ToryLiars The biggest myth being perpetuated by this Tory Government during the whole #CovidUK crisis is that they actually care about the elderly and vulnerable. Their vile cuts to #socialcare over the last 10 years prove otherwise. This is a gift to them. #marr#ridge
BLATANT LIES! Please retweet and spread the word. Classes are still 30 with no distancing. Staff and kids not allowed to wear masks. Only those immediately next to a case informed. Schs told to keep quiet.#ToryLiars#closetheschoolspic.twitter.com/3h8nNZloZp
An official inquiry has confirmed that MPs did flout the 10pm bar curfew despite Tory denials. Health secretary Matt Hancock has refused to say if he was among them…even though he was seen there cracking jokes about his Covid response…#ToryShambles#ToryLiars#ridge#Marrpic.twitter.com/UNsOkuRaQX
Nadhim. Zahawi last Sunday claiming Steve Rotherham of Liverpool was really happy to work with him, Steve said that was a fucking lie!#ToryLiarspic.twitter.com/YtbuA2VRwQ
Undoubtedly the list is lengthening as I type this.
Look up the #ToryLiars hashtag on Twitter and learn something.
Have YOU donated to my crowdfunding appeal, raising funds to fight false libel claims by TV celebrities who should know better? These court cases cost a lot of money so every penny will help ensure that wealth doesn’t beat justice.
Vox Political needs your help! If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers) you can make a one-off donation here:
Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
Cartoonist Andrzej Krauze’s view of government sickness and disability assessments, from years ago. Now it seems we can apply it to Covid-19 test centres, which are inaccessible to many people with disabilities.
Remember when This Site was publishing articles showing how people with disabilities were being refused benefits because their assessments were in inaccessible places so if they made it to the test, they were seen not to have disabilities, and if they didn’t, then their application was binned because they couldn’t be bothered to attend?
Well, now it seems the government is using the same wheeze at Covid-19 test centres:
Still seeing disabled people saying they've tried to use #Coronavirus test centres and found them completely inaccessible and staff completely untrained on how to deal with disabled people. Seems like an utter failure by #TestAndTrace to produce an accessible service
Back in the day, Tony Blair (I think) passed a law called the Disability Discrimination Act, in which it became illegal for buildings that were supposed to be publicly-accessible not to have facilities for people with disabilities.
What happened to that? Is it still on the statute book? If so, why the hell isn’t it being enforced?
Have YOU donated to my crowdfunding appeal, raising funds to fight false libel claims by TV celebrities who should know better? These court cases cost a lot of money so every penny will help ensure that wealth doesn’t beat justice.
Vox Political needs your help! If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers) you can make a one-off donation here:
Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
The UK’s new border: and the Tories can’t say it’s being imposed on us by anybody but them.
It’s all gone horribly wrong for Boris Johnson’s Brexit.
The government that decided to break international law – and threaten the peace in Northern Ireland – by overruling the Brexit plan to put an internal customs border – within the UK – in the Irish Sea…
… is self-imposing an internal border within the UK – where Kent meets Surrey.
So … Britain's border with the EU now looks like this.
That’s one example of Tory hypocrisy. Let’s see how many more we can find.
Here’s one: the new border means the party that said it would rid the UK of unwanted ‘red tape’ is burying itself under a new mountain of the stuff; Michael Gove is desperately trying to recruit a staggering 50,000 “customs agents” to help business prepare for it.
The measures are deemed necessary to prevent the creation of 7,000-long lorry queues and two-day waits to cross the Channel after the full force of Brexit hits us on January 1, 2021.
So:
Police will patrol the Kent border to turn away lorries without an “access permit”.
Officers will use automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) cameras and “other means” to block drivers.
So it seems any trucker without these new travel passports will be arrested in what hauliers say is an attempt to shift blame for the looming disruption onto them (Tory hypocrisy number three).
The social media wits have really gone to town on this one (which is more than permit-less hauliers will be allowed to do) – using the new regulation to ridicule the attitudes of many jingoistic (Brexiteer) Brits:
Thanks to Brexit, we can finally keep those bastards from Kent out of Great Britain! Remember the people of Kent are economic migrants and only want to cross the border to steal our benefits and impose their way of life on us. It's time to take back control. #Kexit
— Boris Johnson #StayAlertControlTheVirus ᵖᵃʳᵒᵈʸ (@GetBrexit_Done) September 23, 2020
I hate those people from east Kent. Coming over here and taking our jobs and our women. #Kexit
Kent's national currency is known as the Farage or colloquially as a Nigel. It's not recognized anywhere else because instead of ink the notes are stamped in bullshit. #Kexit
— John Smith (son of Harry Leslie Smith) (@Harryslaststand) September 23, 2020
They point out that the policy move is an insult to Scotland:
Wonder how Nicola and the Scottish nationalists are going to feel about Kent getting to leave the Union before them 🤔 #Kexit
Have YOU donated to my crowdfunding appeal, raising funds to fight false libel claims by TV celebrities who should know better? These court cases cost a lot of money so every penny will help ensure that wealth doesn’t beat justice.
Vox Political needs your help! If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers) you can make a one-off donation here:
Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
The Department for Work and Pensions is offering people with disabilities – who are able to work – financial help so they can do it at home.
This Writer hates to say it about the Tory DWP but it actually seems to be a good idea!
Please let me know if it doesn’t behave in the best interests of the people it is supposed to be helping (I can’t find out myself because I’m not disabled and Mrs Mike – who is – doesn’t work).
The blurb on gov.co.uk – sorry, gov.uk – says the Access to Work scheme is being extended due to the Covid crisis. It says:
“You can get grant funding if you’re disabled and need support to work from home because of Covid-19, which can help pay for special equipment such as a screen reader or video remote interpreting or support worker services.
“This funding can also be fast-tracked if you’re in the clinically extremely vulnerable group.
“If you’re travelling into the office and due to your health condition public transport isn’t a safe option for you at the moment, you can also apply for financial support with things like taxi fares.
“If you are anxious about returning to work and need support, you can also get mental health support through Access to Work with a tailored package of support for up to nine months.”
Apparently “applying for funding is easy” you can do it online at: gov.uk/access-to-work or over the phone on 0800 121 7479. “Following a short assessment, you can start getting support.”
I want to know if that’s accurate. Let me know your experiences.
Have YOU donated to my crowdfunding appeal, raising funds to fight false libel claims by TV celebrities who should know better? These court cases cost a lot of money so every penny will help ensure that wealth doesn’t beat justice.
Vox Political needs your help! If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers) you can make a one-off donation here:
Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
The High Court – also known as the Royal Courts of Justice – in London.
The High Court has just ruled that a rule allowing the Department for Work and Pensions to force some benefit claimants to wait – unpaid – for a mandatory reconsideration before they can appeal against refusal is unlawful.
The system previously demanded that, if a claim for income-related Employment and Support Allowance was refused, claimants would have to wait for a “mandatory reconsideration” of their case to take place before they could appeal.
This could take weeks, and has often taken months, in which the claimant – who is claiming because of serious illness, remember – has no income on which to survive.
Mr Justice Swift ruled that the demand that a mandatory reconsideration must take place before a claimant can appeal is a “disproportionate interference with the right of access to court” – in some cases.
This case was brought by law graduate Michael Conner, with crowdfunded aid from the website Benefits and Work – and represents a considerable victory for the claimant, the website, and crowdfunded legal proceedings in general.
Mr Connor had been forced to wait 18 weeks while the DWP carried out a mandatory reconsideration of his ESA decision. During this time he had no right to claim ESA.
If he had been able to lodge an appeal, he would have been paid ESA on a probationary rate, dependent on the provision of medical evidence by his doctor.
The judge said that after his benefit was cancelled on October 18, 2018, Mr Connor applied for a mandatory reconsideration.
But, in an “error” of the kind that benefit claimants have come to expect from the DWP, he said “no action was taken in response… The request for revision was incorrectly entered onto the Secretary of State’s electronic document management system.
“The document was not recognised or recorded as a request for reconsideration, and instead was classified as ‘unstructured whitemail'” and “it was not until 6 March 2019 – 4 months after Mr Connor’s request had been received – that it was identified as a request for revision.”
Mr Connor had managed to claim Income Support and Carer’s Allowance in the meantime, so he decided not to appeal the decision. Instead, he informed the DWP that he intended to challenge the legality of the rule making him unable to appeal until a mandatory reconsideration had happened.
He pointed out that:
The rule creates an open-ended deferral of the right to appeal that could leave claimants without income for an unlimited period – as evidenced by his own case.
Its effect is anomalous as ESA is payable before a decision is made and while an appeal is taking place, but not while the DWP is going through the mandatory reconsideration process [or, more likely, forgetting about it – in the opinion of This Writer].
If an appeal is started, there is no provision for back payment of ESA to cover the period of the revision decision while an appeal is ongoing.
So the interference is disproportionate because “it places benefits claimants, such as him, who are vulnerable, in a position of ‘legal and financial limbo, distress and destitution’ for the duration of the revision process that must be pursued before an appeal can be commenced” – and there is “no limit on the time permitted to the Secretary of State to determine an application for revision.”
In his ruling, Mr Justice Swift said: “It is anomalous that the payment pending appeal arrangements for ESA … do not extend to ESA claimants who are required … to request the Secretary of State to revise a decision and await her decision on that request before initiating an appeal.
“At the hearing of this case I gave the Secretary of State the opportunity to … explain why no provision exists to pay ESA to claimants… None of this further information provides the answer.
“My conclusion is that [the regulation in question] is a disproportionate interference with the right of access to court, so far as it applies to claimants to ESA who, once an appeal is initiated, meet the conditions for payment pending appeal.
“The advantage permitted to the Secretary of State by [the] regulation … comes at a cost to ESA claimants. There is no explanation for that.
“There is no evidence to support a conclusion that the objective pursued by [the] regulation … would to any extent be compromised if payments like the payments pending appeal made to ESA claimants who are pursuing appeals to the Tribunal, were made to them while they waited on the Secretary of State’s revision decision.
“In the absence of payment equivalent to payment pending appeal, the application of [the] regulation … to ESA claimants does not strike the required fair balance, and for that reason is an unjustified impediment to the right of access to court guaranteed by ECHR Article 6.”
Benefits and Work has stated: “Sadly, the ruling does not apply to other benefits such as PIP or DLA.
Nonetheless, it is an important victory and it means that ESA claimants, who are often faced with the prospect of many weeks without funds if they wish to appeal, are now in a much better position when challenging a decision.”
It will be interesting to see what will happen now.
The ruling is that the current situation is unlawful but no further remedy has been put in place beyond a statement to that effect.
What will happen to ESA claimants who must go through the mandatory reconsideration process now? Will they be paid while their case is reviewed?
That seems the logical course.
But I fear the DWP may find a way to duck out of it.
Have YOU donated to my crowdfunding appeal, raising funds to fight false libel claims by TV celebrities who should know better? These court cases cost a lot of money so every penny will help ensure that wealth doesn’t beat justice.
Vox Political needs your help! If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers) you can make a one-off donation here:
Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
This is what happens when you create a system to stop people claiming benefits – and then need to pay them to millions of people.
The Tory government could just switch to a Universal Basic Income system that is straightforward and cheaper – but for some reason it doesn’t seem to want to do that.
I wonder why not?
Instead – well, read about the shambles for yourself:
From Thursday, a new frontline team will be in place to proactively call customers where additional information is required.
Customers applying for universal credit are being advised to sign-up online, where they can share details such as salary and national insurance information for the DWP to assess.
It said claims will then be reviewed, and where additional details are needed, it will get in touch with you over the phone or via your online portal.
The move, it said, is designed to take some of the worry and frustration out of submitting a claim, while speeding it up by putting an end to long call wait times.
More than 1.2 million people have applied for Universal Credit in the past three weeks, and in the past seven days more than 5.8 million calls have been made to its helpline, equivalent to three times the average per day.
That’s an awful lot of people signing up to wait five weeks before they get any money.
And they’ve overloaded the system.
On April 8, the DWP admitted access to its phone lines had to be “controlled” in order to stop critical services like NHS 111 collapsing.
Now, it is asking people to avoid its phone lines altogether.
That is not the statement of an organisation that wants to help.
It is an organisation that only wants to help itself.
Have YOU donated to my crowdfunding appeal, raising funds to fight false libel claims by TV celebrities who should know better? These court cases cost a lot of money so every penny will help ensure that wealth doesn’t beat justice.
Vox Political needs your help! If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers) you can make a one-off donation here:
Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
I was talking to an acquaintance the other day – a person of senior years who fits into several of the coronavirus “at risk” categories.
“Oh yes,” she assured me. “I’m self-isolating.”
Great!
“I was only telling my hairdresser about it at the salon today.”
What?
I mean, what?
Yeah. She was absolutely staying away from contact with any other people who could possibly pass on Covid-19 to her – apart from any other people who happened to be at the hairdresser’s at the same time as her. And she didn’t think there was anything wrong with that.
And here’s the thing:
Even the National Hair & Beauty Federation (NHBF) – that represents hairdressing salons – knows that people who attend such establishments are putting themselves at risk.
Why haven’t they closed?
Well, some have done so voluntarily.
But most have not – because the government hasn’t told them to do it.
See, without an order from Boris Johnson’s administration, hairdressers can’t get access to the financial help that has been put in place for businesses.
That’s why the NHBF has asked for salons to be put on the list of businesses that must close.
Don’t take my word for it. See for yourself:
The Government issued instructions on Friday 20 March about which businesses must close but made no mention of hair salons, barbershops or beauty salons. The NHBF has urgently contacted a number of key government officials and departments (see details below) to ask for all salons and barbershops to be immediately added to the list of businesses that must close.
This is not a decision we have taken lightly and we fully understand how worried everyone in our industry is at the moment. Our priority is to protect our industry, colleagues, business owners, employees and clients from the further spread of the COVID-19 virus.
Some salons and barbershops have already taken the decision to close, and we believe that this is the right decision. Stylists, therapists and barbers are inevitably in close contact with a wide range of clients which means they cannot follow the government’s social distancing guidelines.
My own experience with my acquaintance tells me that the NHBF is right.
It’s vital that the government puts hairdressing salons on the ‘closed’ list – otherwise people like her will blithely put themselves in danger without a second’s thought.
Have YOU donated to my crowdfunding appeal, raising funds to fight false libel claims by TV celebrities who should know better? These court cases cost a lot of money so every penny will help ensure that wealth doesn’t beat justice.
Vox Political needs your help! If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers) you can make a one-off donation here:
Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. This includes scrolling or continued navigation. more information
The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.
