Jump to content

Welcome to One Team in Bristol - Bristol City Forums

Welcome to One Team in Bristol - Bristol City Forums, like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community, but don't worry this is a simple free process that requires minimal information for you to signup. Be a part of One Team in Bristol - Bristol City Forums by signing in or creating an account.

  • Start new topics and reply to others
  • Full access to all forums (not all viewable as guest)
  • Subscribe to topics and forums to get email updates
  • Get your own profile page and make new friends
  • Send personal messages to other members.
  • Support OTIB with a premium membership

IGNORED

The Coronavirus and its impact on sport/Fans Return (Merged)


Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Seems may not now be able to attend until end of March.

Would make sense given the claims of up to 6 months of these measures.

This doesn’t surprise me given what’s going on in terms of the rise in cases nationally. By then we might have a vaccine, but there is the possibility that we could go a whole season without spectators. It also throws into doubt lots of events that have been postponed by a year in the hope of getting spectators or an audience.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Chappers said:

Think you’ve massively missed the point, you can’t have large crowds, but you have to look at L1, L2 and particularly, National League. There is absolutely no reason why you cannot have limited attendances at that level, a whole lot safer than sitting in a pub, no mask, and closer contact. And indoors where the virus spreads a lot more. 

Germany seems to manage well. 

I haven’t missed the point and I’ve noted reasons why, so it’s incorrect to say there is “absolute no” reason just because you don’t agree with them.

We’re tightening up on restrictions, it would completely go against the message to start letting hundreds or even thousands of people into sporting events.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, MarcusX said:

I haven’t missed the point and I’ve noted reasons why, so it’s incorrect to say there is “absolute no” reason just because you don’t agree with them.

We’re tightening up on restrictions, it would completely go against the message to start letting hundreds or even thousands of people into sporting events.

I’ve just lost the point of your argument, how it relates to small attendances at a fairly low level (Saving clubs), and why that’s so wrong when more risky activities are permitted. The science I read suggests that virus infection outdoors is low risk, and social distancing at Twerton Park is hardly difficult.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I was at Taunton v Wantage tonight in the fa cup, a crowd of 353, ( they are allowed a maximum of 600) no issues at all, people social distancing and plenty of stewards policing this.

As long as people are sensible, I really can’t see why grounds cannot be open for fans at all levels with 20% of the capacity allowed to watch. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Portland Bill said:

I was at Taunton v Wantage tonight in the fa cup, a crowd of 353, ( they are allowed a maximum of 600) no issues at all, people social distancing and plenty of stewards policing this.

As long as people are sensible, I really can’t see why grounds cannot be open for fans at all levels with 20% of the capacity allowed to watch. 

I was at Welton v Sherborne, crowd of approx 150. Easy to see how the virus could spread in this environment unfortunately. 

Interesting the one thing you haven't mentioned is whether temperatures were being checked on entry and details taken of every spectator I.e. test and trace? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Kid in the Riot said:

I was at Welton v Sherborne, crowd of approx 150. Easy to see how the virus could spread in this environment unfortunately. 

Interesting the one thing you haven't mentioned is whether temperatures were being checked on entry and details taken of every spectator I.e. test and trace? 

Temperatures weren’t being taken tonight, which surprised me, as this has happened at other games I have gone to.

Every game I have watched so far this season ( approx 8 ) have done track and trace. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Portland Bill said:

I was at Taunton v Wantage tonight in the fa cup, a crowd of 353, ( they are allowed a maximum of 600) no issues at all, people social distancing and plenty of stewards policing this.

As long as people are sensible, I really can’t see why grounds cannot be open for fans at all levels with 20% of the capacity allowed to watch. 

It’s fairly easy to spread 353 people around a football pitch, with groups staying at least 2 metres apart, especially if there are no stands and seats to deal with. You could spread 1000 people easily around Ashton Gate, if everyone acted appropriately and all 4 stands were used. The problem is not in the ground itself which is outside, so less risky. It’s getting people to and from, not congregating indoors un the concourses as they enter and leave.

However in the current circumstances, the big issue is that it cuts against everything else that we are being required to do, which is really to stop mixing with each other, because as long as there are potentially infectious asymptomatic people meeting other people, the risk of spreading rapidly remains high.

The bottom line is that unlike Germany, Italy and even Greece, we have never managed to get testing sorted in this country and that’s why we are where are now. Instead of investing in and building on what we had in hospitals, universities and in local authority public health departments, this Tory government outsourced it to Serco, a company renowned for its high profile public contract failures, in which they get the money but we don’t get the service. NHS Test and Trace is a lie because it’s not NHS, it’s a private company making a big profit and failing us in the process. Just because you stick an NHS label on it doesn’t make it so.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 3
  • Flames 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Portland Bill said:

I was at Taunton v Wantage tonight in the fa cup, a crowd of 353, ( they are allowed a maximum of 600) no issues at all, people social distancing and plenty of stewards policing this.

As long as people are sensible, I really can’t see why grounds cannot be open for fans at all levels with 20% of the capacity allowed to watch. 

I went as well, clearly works in smaller crowds. The logic of stopping something like that but saying it's ok to sit in the pub for 12 hours getting shitfaced is beyond me.

Were talking about something that reached 4k+ new cases and killed 11 people yesterday and were impinging on people's freedom because of that, since when has the ends of saving everyone justified the means of taking away people's freedom's. Have I completely missed the point? I think the government need to explain this a lot better. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Pezo said:

I went as well, clearly works in smaller crowds. The logic of stopping something like that but saying it's ok to sit in the pub for 12 hours getting shitfaced is beyond me.

Were talking about something that reached 4k+ new cases and killed 11 people yesterday and were impinging on people's freedom because of that, since when has the ends of saving everyone justified the means of taking away people's freedom's. Have I completely missed the point? I think the government need to explain this a lot better. 

We are not where we were in March as it’s 4000 testing positive in the community and in hospital, compared to 5000 just in hospital. However the testing is an underestimate of all the cases, because a significant proportion have minimal symptoms, so may not realise they are infected. However as positive cases rise, hospital admissions have started going up again pretty quickly (in the Rhondda they went from 2 positive in hospital and none in intensive care to 35 cases and 4 in intensive care in 2 days last week!) followed ultimately by deaths. And many in the NHS are worried that combined with a usual winter surge, the addition of even a smaller wave than we had in March and April will completely overwhelm the hospital system. That’s why there are new restrictions.

If we had brought some of this in at the end of February, we might not have needed the full lockdown for so long and may also have saved many thousands of lives. In the South West, we were just fortunate that the original lockdown came in when the prevalence was low at around 1% of the population infected at that time, and it never got much higher. In London it was around 5% and quickly it peaked close to 10%, which is why things were so bad there. And even then, the fact that we got off relatively lightly by comparison, still doesn’t make up for those who have lost loved ones to this disease, including some of our own supporters and ST holders.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Dr Balls said:

It’s fairly easy to spread 353 people around a football pitch, with groups staying at least 2 metres apart, especially if there are no stands and seats to deal with. You could spread 1000 people easily around Ashton Gate, if everyone acted appropriately and all 4 stands were used. The problem is not in the ground itself which is outside, so less risky. It’s getting people to and from, not congregating indoors un the concourses as they enter and leave.

However in the current circumstances, the big issue is that it cuts against everything else that we are being required to do, which is really to stop mixing with each other, because as long as there are potentially infectious asymptomatic people meeting other people, the risk of spreading rapidly remains high.

The bottom line is that unlike Germany, Italy and even Greece, we have never managed to get testing sorted in this country and that’s why we are where are now. Instead of investing in and building on what we had in hospitals, universities and in local authority public health departments, this Tory government outsourced it to Serco, a company renowned for its high profile public contract failures, in which they get the money but we don’t get the service. NHS Test and Trace is a lie because it’s not NHS, it’s a private company making a big profit and failing us in the process. Just because you stick an NHS label on it doesn’t make it so.

You couldn’t make it up could you. This government is full of mixed messages. An open air 27,000 capacity stadium is not safe with say a 20% crowd but a pub after being open for 10hrs with no obvious ventilation is??

I get the travel thing and crowd control before and after but there are ways of managing that in a controlled way to minimise transmission. 

Edited by allyolly
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have watched French football highlights and they have allowed 5,000 fans into all top flight games, some of their stadiums only hold around 15,000 and fans can be quite close at times. Compare that to our approach and the difference is quite stark, I hope this doesn't destroy the lower leagues but how can you operate when there is practically no income for the next 6 months and even after that you just don't know what will happen?

In olden times people used to support Chariot Racing teams like people now support Football but that completely died out over time. Crazy comparison but maybe one day football will be the same. 😧

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Robert the bruce said:

Your sleep walking.....

No I’m not. Ive watched nearly ten games this season with crowds, and have come into close contact with no one. I’m in the open air, always at least 2 metres from anyone else, what is the problem ?

I go to work everyday with 60 other people and come closer to my fellow workers than I have at these football matches. I go shopping at a supermarket and come closer to people than I do at football matches. 

Stay sensible is my motto, if you aren’t able to, then that’s your choice. 

 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, TonyTonyTony said:

I doubt the EFL / PFA have the money. I agree re the FA - they should step in but the PL is where the cash is. We are in unprecedented times - they should make a contribution to saving clubs going out of business - call it morality if you want

I think there were plans originally in place for this to happen (during the initial outbreak) but the Premier League wanted some agreements put in place & things never proceeded.

Now personally, I can understand that & if I was an organisation that was in a position to control such things, I would want some say on who gets the handouts & how that money should be spent. I don’t believe clubs should be given a handout to help with running costs to then turn around & suddenly spend money on new signings, so if someone takes a handout, it should be specified that it has to go on covering debts, wages & daily running costs but clubs that have been poorly run in the recent past aren’t entitled to the bail out either, so the likes of Charlton, Bolton, Portsmouth, Blackpool, Sunderland, Birmingham & I’m sure there are others (Derby & Sheffield Wednesday?) wouldn’t be entitled to handouts as the mess they find themselves in has nothing to do with the pandemic & everything to do with their owners (and previous owners) incompetence.

Also, the clubs that have seen fit to be able to spend to improve their squads while all this financial uncertainty has been going on, shouldn’t be entitled to anything, if they haven’t had the foresight to realise that something serious is happening with the financial aspect of the sport, then they don’t deserve the money & I’d include us within that! We have seen fit as an organisation to make staff members redundant yet we have still seen fit to spend money to improve our squad, we aren’t in such a bad financial position that we need the help that others clearly do & I’d also include the likes of Forest, Birmingham (again), Derby (again), Norwich, Watford, Stoke, QPR, Swansea, Cardiff, Brentford, Middlesborough, Bournemouth & Sheffield Wednesday (again) in that list just off the top of my head.

If clubs have signed free transfers & / or loans to help themselves out then that’s acceptable (in my opinion) but spending millions on new players & then expecting someone else to pay for them to carry on trading isn’t acceptable, 95% of us (at least) probably knew it was unlikely that supporters would be allowed back into stadiums & we’ve been warned about a second wave of the pandemic hitting since the original pandemic eased a little, so if clubs haven’t heeded that warning, that’s their own incompetence & they don’t deserve the help that could be on offer.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Tipps69 said:

I think there were plans originally in place for this to happen (during the initial outbreak) but the Premier League wanted some agreements put in place & things never proceeded.

Now personally, I can understand that & if I was an organisation that was in a position to control such things, I would want some say on who gets the handouts & how that money should be spent. I don’t believe clubs should be given a handout to help with running costs to then turn around & suddenly spend money on new signings, so if someone takes a handout, it should be specified that it has to go on covering debts, wages & daily running costs but clubs that have been poorly run in the recent past aren’t entitled to the bail out either, so the likes of Charlton, Bolton, Portsmouth, Blackpool, Sunderland, Birmingham & I’m sure there are others (Derby & Sheffield Wednesday?) wouldn’t be entitled to handouts as the mess they find themselves in has nothing to do with the pandemic & everything to do with their owners (and previous owners) incompetence.

Also, the clubs that have seen fit to be able to spend to improve their squads while all this financial uncertainty has been going on, shouldn’t be entitled to anything, if they haven’t had the foresight to realise that something serious is happening with the financial aspect of the sport, then they don’t deserve the money & I’d include us within that! We have seen fit as an organisation to make staff members redundant yet we have still seen fit to spend money to improve our squad, we aren’t in such a bad financial position that we need the help that others clearly do & I’d also include the likes of Forest, Birmingham (again), Derby (again), Norwich, Watford, Stoke, QPR, Swansea, Cardiff, Brentford, Middlesborough, Bournemouth & Sheffield Wednesday (again) in that list just off the top of my head.

If clubs have signed free transfers & / or loans to help themselves out then that’s acceptable (in my opinion) but spending millions on new players & then expecting someone else to pay for them to carry on trading isn’t acceptable, 95% of us (at least) probably knew it was unlikely that supporters would be allowed back into stadiums & we’ve been warned about a second wave of the pandemic hitting since the original pandemic eased a little, so if clubs haven’t heeded that warning, that’s their own incompetence & they don’t deserve the help that could be on offer.

Good post.

For me, there is a lot of moaning from owners that FFP doesn’t allow them to buy there way to success, e.g. they can only cover losses.  Well this is the perfect opportunity for them to cover bigger losses!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Chappers said:

I’ve just lost the point of your argument, how it relates to small attendances at a fairly low level (Saving clubs), and why that’s so wrong when more risky activities are permitted. The science I read suggests that virus infection outdoors is low risk, and social distancing at Twerton Park is hardly difficult.

Sorry if I was unclear

2 points really, we're telling the country we're socialising too much. Further restrictions have been put in place and there's rumours (Scotland have already done it) that next step will be no mixing of households. It would somewhat confuse or dilute this message if you then had people attending sports events. There are families of 5 who can't go and see both grandparents at the same time. I'm not saying I dont want to see fans back in but I'm looking at the bigger picture and the message. Same as when football stopped and Cheltenham went ahead for example - it was mixed messages.

Second point is that for a lot of people match day isn't just the game, it's the whole day. People are more likely to meet up before the game, maybe in pubs, maybe at home or maybe just hanging around outside the ground mixing with each other and possibly again after. It's not just the moment inside the ground where fans are split evenly around a huge ground - it's the getting in, the facilities available once inside and how that works. I would assume that although it's a significant amount of money, just getting fans in at reduced numbers isn't enough. They'd need to be buying food and drink etc too? Will that be possible? It could be that trials are done and it's proved this can all work safely but I questioned your comment that it was "perfectly safe" and "absolutely no reason not to". There's no evidence it's "perfectly" safe yet and there are reasons not to, even if you dont agree with it.

A third point, or perhaps 2a what happens when the weather turns? Twerton Park for example has a lot of open ends, people wont stand out in the rain while it seems like it will work to spread people around the ground in practicality they will congregate under cover. I'm thinking of other grounds at that level e.g. Chippenham where there's a relatively small stand and then only one goal and one side of the pitch covered. Will capacity be reduced based on weather? I havent seen any guidelines so genuine question.

Dont get me wrong, I really want to attend football matches. Point 1 is my biggest concern though, if we're really facing a potential second wave and the government wants people to buy-in to what they are trying to achieve then I don't see how crowds can return to football and other sporting events.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Pezo said:

I went as well, clearly works in smaller crowds. The logic of stopping something like that but saying it's ok to sit in the pub for 12 hours getting shitfaced is beyond me.

Were talking about something that reached 4k+ new cases and killed 11 people yesterday and were impinging on people's freedom because of that, since when has the ends of saving everyone justified the means of taking away people's freedom's. Have I completely missed the point? I think the government need to explain this a lot better. 

I know there's a separate thread but this needs to be addressed when people say these things. A day later and it's 5k cases and 37 deaths, tripled in a day. This isn't even about how many people are dying today it's about stopping that number before it gets out of control. Also consider that there's a lag between when people get it and when they die, so we're talking about 5k cases today and how many deaths that may look like in 3 weeks time  -not hard to comprehend how they make look if the numbers have tripled in 24 hours.

Do I also have to mention the dangers of 5k people out in public with this virus, many asymptomatic and who they may pass it on to? If we carried on as we were with people taking the piss and meeting in large groups, holding house parties and such like, 1 person soon spreads to 20, and those 20 soon spread to their friends and family. It needed to be addressed now before it got out of hand because if it didn't people were only going to get more relaxed with their actions.

8 hours ago, allyolly said:

You couldn’t make it up could you. This government is full of mixed messages. An open air 27,000 capacity stadium is not safe with say a 20% crowd but a pub after being open for 10hrs with no obvious ventilation is??

I get the travel thing and crowd control before and after but there are ways of managing that in a controlled way to minimise transmission. 

Pubs and indoor spaces shouldn't be opening without proper ventilation, it's part of the guidance of them opening.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Portland Bill said:

No I’m not. Ive watched nearly ten games this season with crowds, and have come into close contact with no one. I’m in the open air, always at least 2 metres from anyone else, what is the problem ?

I go to work everyday with 60 other people and come closer to my fellow workers than I have at these football matches. I go shopping at a supermarket and come closer to people than I do at football matches. 

Stay sensible is my motto, if you aren’t able to, then that’s your choice. 

 

Totally agree.  However, not everyone is as responsible as you.

If everyone did as asked and took social distancing seriously we would be experiencing lots more of what we enjoy. 

It's not the match itself; clubs will manage this properly, it's the fact that you can't trust some people to act responsibly before and after the game.   If it was me I'd let fans in but on the provision that 1) all pubs nearby are shut and 2) all nearby parking restrictions are lifted (where safe) so it's easy for everyone who can drive, to drive to the game.  For example we could use the park and ride at long ashton so people can walk to the ground.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Baba Yaga said:

I have watched French football highlights and they have allowed 5,000 fans into all top flight games, some of their stadiums only hold around 15,000 and fans can be quite close at times. Compare that to our approach and the difference is quite stark, I hope this doesn't destroy the lower leagues but how can you operate when there is practically no income for the next 6 months and even after that you just don't know what will happen?

In olden times people used to support Chariot Racing teams like people now support Football but that completely died out over time. Crazy comparison but maybe one day football will be the same. 😧

France are interesting. They've gone from 1k cases a day to several days of 13k cases a day in a month. That's double their worst day on March 31st. They've got the most active cases in Europe though their deaths are still relatively low at this point, will be interesting to see how that tracks over the next couple of weeks. Could the increase in cases be linked to crowds returning? Either way I'm not sure if they are someone we should be looking to emulate right now.

Also for balance, Nice played behind closed doors on Sunday against PSG despite intially hoping for 5k fans and last week Marseille only had 1k instead of 5k so it's not looking as hopeful everywhere in France.

1 hour ago, Portland Bill said:

No I’m not. Ive watched nearly ten games this season with crowds, and have come into close contact with no one. I’m in the open air, always at least 2 metres from anyone else, what is the problem ?

I go to work everyday with 60 other people and come closer to my fellow workers than I have at these football matches. I go shopping at a supermarket and come closer to people than I do at football matches. 

Stay sensible is my motto, if you aren’t able to, then that’s your choice. 

 

It's good that you're sensible. Unfortunately it's been shown that a lot of people can't, it's not just a case of "your choice" if you aren't sensible. They aren't putting just themselves at risk, they are putting everyone else they come into contact with at risk.

I think it's great you've been able to go to football, and as you say you've kept your distance so while the option is there I'm not saying you shouldn't go, you absolutely should but looking at it from a bigger picture I just can't see how we can open up further whilst telling the country they need to restrict their socialising.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MarcusX said:

Pubs and indoor spaces shouldn't be opening without proper ventilation, it's part of the guidance of them opening.

That is not true @MarcusX, as someone who has been involved heavily in the reopening of a bar, the guideline was just to increase circulation if possible

The is no guideline to say a venue can't open "without proper ventilation"

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MarcusX said:

France are interesting. They've gone from 1k cases a day to several days of 13k cases a day in a month. That's double their worst day on March 31st. They've got the most active cases in Europe though their deaths are still relatively low at this point, will be interesting to see how that tracks over the next couple of weeks. Could the increase in cases be linked to crowds returning? Either way I'm not sure if they are someone we should be looking to emulate right now.

Also for balance, Nice played behind closed doors on Sunday against PSG despite intially hoping for 5k fans and last week Marseille only had 1k instead of 5k so it's not looking as hopeful everywhere in France.

It's good that you're sensible. Unfortunately it's been shown that a lot of people can't, it's not just a case of "your choice" if you aren't sensible. They aren't putting just themselves at risk, they are putting everyone else they come into contact with at risk.

I think it's great you've been able to go to football, and as you say you've kept your distance so while the option is there I'm not saying you shouldn't go, you absolutely should but looking at it from a bigger picture I just can't see how we can open up further whilst telling the country they need to restrict their socialising.

Thanks for clarifying I assumed that Nice and Marseille fans were just in the same stand as the cameras to be honest.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, CyderInACan said:

Even that is open to debate TBH 

Yeah, I was really aiming that at clubs that need players to just put a team out, not for the likes of us where we are possibly spending £25k p/w on the likes of Mawson’s wages. Maybe I should of put that bit a bit clearer?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, phantom said:

That is not true @MarcusX, as someone who has been involved heavily in the reopening of a bar, the guideline was just to increase circulation if possible

The is no guideline to say a venue can't open "without proper ventilation"

Fair enough I've misunderstood and sounds like you'll know better. I did some reading and most articles said they should but perhaps as you say there's no actual rule

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Back of the net said:

Totally agree.  However, not everyone is as responsible as you.

If everyone did as asked and took social distancing seriously we would be experiencing lots more of what we enjoy. 

It's not the match itself; clubs will manage this properly, it's the fact that you can't trust some people to act responsibly before and after the game.   If it was me I'd let fans in but on the provision that 1) all pubs nearby are shut and 2) all nearby parking restrictions are lifted (where safe) so it's easy for everyone who can drive, to drive to the game.  For example we could use the park and ride at long ashton so people can walk to the ground.

Far to sensible I'm afraid that's why it wont happen, unfortunately.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Portland Bill said:

I was at Taunton v Wantage tonight in the fa cup, a crowd of 353, ( they are allowed a maximum of 600) no issues at all, people social distancing and plenty of stewards policing this.

As long as people are sensible, I really can’t see why grounds cannot be open for fans at all levels with 20% of the capacity allowed to watch. 

Therein, sadly, lies the problem.

If people had been sensible from the outset and followed the guidelines we would not be in this position. From the outset it was pretty clear that this virus was deadly and virulent, but could only be transmitted if we let it through our own actions. Wash hands, and keep social distancing were the initial guidelines, but even when lockdown ended too many seemed to have a problem interpreting those simple rules. More recently, wearing a mask in a shop  and observing social distancing has proved equally taxing for far too many people - how many people think having the elastic over your ears constitutes wearing a mask, not whether it overs the nose and mouth?

Mrs Downend says it is only a minority that are not following the rules, but with this virus  it is the actions of that minority that are causing the problem that affects the majority. Only the other day there was a report of a guy returning from a foreign holiday who not only failed to observe quarantine on his return, but went on a pub crawl with his mates with who knows how many new infections resulting. 

I've read comments where people are quoted as saying that if they want to take the risk, then why shouldn't they be allowed so to do. The reason is that they are not just risking themselves, but every other person they come into contact with, most of whom are not prepared to take the same degree of risk.

I suspect that football at all levels, but especially lower down the pyramid, would have been able to organise and police a safe return for limited numbers of fans. That they are not yet allowed to do so is down to the selfish actions of a minority of the population that have been unable, or unwilling, to excercise any personal responsibility over the last few months.

 

 

 

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 1
  • Hmmm 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Curr Avon changed the title to Preston testing for Covid

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...