Extended Sunday opening hours

[Shaker]

Get the violin out someone.

My first thought too

But I don't understand your point. You seem to be saying 'it was unnecessarily tough for me, so it needs to be unnecessarily tough for you' - that doesn't seem very reasonable.

... and that was the second. It's a common thing; a gripe (often, not exclusively but often) by the old against the young: I had things tough, and so should you. I suffered in some way, and you ought to suffer in the same way or at least in some way as well.

Which, given that suffering is by definition supposed to be a bad and unwelcome thing, seems to bespeak a degree of sadism.

I don't want to just 'manage' I want unnecessary restrictions to be stripped away. Again (still no-one giving a cogent rebuttal) - if a shop wants to open, there are staff happy to work and people who want to shop during extended hours on a Sunday why one earth should that be prevented by law.

There isn't a rebuttal. It doesn't exist.

[Shaker]

Does anybody else have the 'Four Yorkshiremen' sketch running through their head right now?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Does anybody else have the 'Four Yorkshiremen' sketch running through their head right now?

No but what I do have in mind is which Shaker are we dealing with here? Is it Shaker one who, for reasons of purely wanting to stick one on the Christians, wants to keep Tuesday special or Shaker two who believes on pushing the envelope of human recuperation by having loads of people working while he plays with the added Bonus of sticking one on the Christians.....in other words ''The voice of ADHD Britain'' ?

As long as both of you you pay more taxes for the coming mental epidemic of all work and no rest Shakes I don't mind.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It's starting to look like shopping is more of an addiction, which has to be fed on a 24hour seven days a week basis.

Spot on.

[Shaker]

No it isn't.

What it looks like is what it is and what it has always been, frankly. This is the top and tail of it. You have no right to dictate who buys what, where and when, and fuck you royally for even thinking of trying. You don't own me or control me, my life or my spending power, so piss off out of my way and my life.

On balance I feel that that covers it for the most part.

[Nearly Sane]

There is a fairly basic point if one is a liberal here that just disliking something is not a reason to restrict the freedom of others.

[Shaker]

You have no point. In all senses of the term.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You have no point. In all senses of the term.

Rose has. If there is no distinction of days it follows that you can be required to be available to work at anytime for however long. Mount a logical argument against that Shakers 1 and 2.

[Gordon]

Some of you are starting to sound ridiculous in your demand that the laws are changed to suit you, and how your rights are not met, all because the shops are not open for 24hrs, because you think you are entitled to it.

The need to shop outside the normal hours you have now, is excessive.

Plus a lot of you are in denial about the effects it has on other people around you.

just because you want something, refuse to see the impact it has on others ( or don't care) doesn't mean you should be entitled to get it.

its the " I want it, and I want it NOW! " attitude of a child.

That's what it reminds me of, children, having a footstomping episode.

No issues here in Scotland where we don't have this silly Sunday restriction: this just in, 'not many dead'!

[Shaker]

"to (sic) ignorant"?

What a gift.

[Nearly Sane]

There is a fairly basic point if one is a liberal here that just disliking something is nit a reason to restrict the freedom of others.

Yes it is, because we all impact on each other.

A certain balance on both sides is needed, but I would have no trouble restricting my neighbours freedom should their activities impact too negatively on me for example.

No, not if you are actually a liberal with a small l. This isn't about a balance since actually in this case  it is meaningless. The 'negative impact' currently being defined is it means things do not happen the way you like. Not that you cannot do the things you choose.

[Shaker]

You have no point. In all senses of the term.

Rose has. If there is no distinction of days it follows that you can be required to be available to work at anytime for however long. Mount a logical argument against that Shakers 1 and 2.

Why would I waste my time mounting a logical argument against something which in itself has absolutely no logical content whatever?

Why?

Why?

[Shaker]

"to (sic) ignorant"?

What a gift.

In your case, it's more of an infliction.

Yes, you always have been, here as elsewhere.

[Nearly Sane]

At base, the I can't have the Sunday I want is the same argument as gay marriage will affect straight marriage argument. You allow people to act freely and don't place restrictions simply because you do not get your way. There is an assumption of proof of it being worse than just not what you want in order to restrict freedom of choice.

[Nearly Sane]

Now, other philosophies, both political and moral are available, than liberalism but they need to defended as part of their overarching aim, rather than just I don't want this. Paternalism on this needs to be justified as to what the consequences are and there are bits of Gonnagle' s position looking at that but it's not being made very much here. Just telling people to organise better does not work unless you make a case of why they should.

[Nearly Sane]

There is a fairly basic point if one is a liberal here that just disliking something is nit a reason to restrict the freedom of others.

Yes it is, because we all impact on each other.

A certain balance on both sides is needed, but I would have no trouble restricting my neighbours freedom should their activities impact too negatively on me for example.

No, not if you are actually a liberal with a small l. This isn't about a balance since actually in this case  it is meaningless. The 'negative impact' currently being defined is it means things do not happen the way you like. Not that you cannot do the things you choose.

No we are talking about the law as it stands and proposed changes.

The negative impact is that some people here cannot shop for 24hours a day 7 days a week instead of the normal ( for England)24 hrs six days a week.

I am quite happy with the law as it stands now.

It is the others here who want to change the law, because things are not happening the way "they" would like.

No, the law as it actually stands is irrelevant to political or moral liberalism. Your argument is the same as was made against gay marriage.

[Gordon]

It is the others here who want to change the law, because things are not happening the way "they" would like.

In contrast to those, like you, who want to retain arrangements to suit what 'you' like - can you see the problem here?

You need to go beyond this and ask why the personal likes, or dislikes, of some people represent sufficient grounds to restrict others from doings things (like shopping) that aren't in themselves prohibited in a more general sense and, in fact, are otherwise routine - like visiting supermarkets when the need and/or inclination arises.

[Shaker]

At least try not to be so dim.

NS is making the (entirely valid) point (which I have had cause to make several times on this thread) that your "arguments" are of the same species as the kind of "arguments" mounted by similarly illiberal opponents of equal marriage.

Do you get it now?

[Nearly Sane]

This is nothing like Gay marriage.

This is about opening shops for longer hours on a Sunday.

Gay marriage is about whole life choices.

One is something that only effects Sunday's, the other someone's whole life.

I don't think they are comparable Nearly Sane.

Although "some"  here seem to think Sunday trading hours has the same impact on them.

It's an analogous argument. It isn't saying what you are arguing about shares all characteristics just the the argument does. Your position is that the change has to be justified and a statement that you do not want it to happen because it will affect you in some way you do not like is sufficient.

[ProfessorDavey]

That's what it reminds me of, children, having a footstomping episode.

It is exactly the reverse.

The shop wants to open extended hours, people are happy to work those extended hours, customers would prefer to shop during those extended hours. The shop opening extended hours has no effect on you whatsoever ... yet

"I say no you can't, you shan't, you shan't you shan't. And I'll keep stomping my foot until you realise you shan't, you shan't you shan't."

[Gordon]

I know why, I think it impacts on our traditional weekend and makes it less pleasant and for people who end up working in shops, it has a negative impact on family life.

As the law in England already has Sunday trading laws I think it is more up to those who want to change it, to defend their position with more than just them wanting it.

Sunday's have always been a bit different, with Sunday roasts and family having time to socialise together and share things.

Not everyone wants this, but I think it is a shame for those people who want to keep their Sunday's traditional.

Although people keep saying you still can, you can't if your work puts pressure on you to work as a normal day.

The problem is shops don't employ " just" those who want to work on a Sunday on a Sunday. It is cheaper for them to have a smaller " pool " of staff to draw from because it costs  companies to employ more people.

I think it is a shame for those who want a traditional family Sunday to have it destroyed because some people can't shop when the stores are open 24hrs 6 days a week.

The amendment to the times is just another erosion of our family "Sunday ".

My reasons aren't really religious, I just think we need one day that is a bit different to all the other days and are a break for everyone.

This is a fallacious argument from tradition pure and simple and, as such, has no merit.
 

[Shaker]

I "get" that you can't actually think, or deal with the points I am making, but have to resort to straw men and stereotypes to deal with them.

Try sticking to the subject

I have done - consistently, throughout, just like Rhiannon, wigginhall and (especially) Professor Davey, all four of whom can think you into a cocked hat any day of any week.

[Gordon]

It is reality that things do change over time, which is why there are no longer men going around lighting gas-fueled streetlights each evening.

A more recent example, and on a subject close to my heart, was the removal of UK restrictions on gambling on Sundays a few years ago, so that for those that are interested there is now 'normal' horse racing with associated betting on every Sunday. Since then the remaining legal restriction that prevented horse racing on what Christians refer to as 'Good Friday', and which was obviously a religious restriction, has also been removed.

The point being that those who are uninterested in horse racing/gambling are free to avoid these activities without their preferences constraining those of us who are - and that they might disapprove is utterly irrelevant in relation to routine activities such as horse racing, gambling or shopping.     

[wigginhall]

The idea of the traditional family Sunday made me laugh - my mother as a child,  wasn't allowed to play on a Sunday, or read anything frivolous, or make a noise, so she and her sisters had miserable Sundays.   

Why don't we keep it like that? 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You have no point. In all senses of the term.

Rose has. If there is no distinction of days it follows that you can be required to be available to work at anytime for however long. Mount a logical argument against that Shakers 1 and 2.

Why would I waste my time mounting a logical argument

Yep, why break a habit of a lifetime?