Lockdown ban on wedding kisses ‘bizarre'
A lockdown restriction banning couples kissing at weddings was 'bizarre', the Scottish Covid-19 inquiry heard.
The long-term impact of Covid meant that weddings included more outdoor ceremonies and shorter timescales for planning, a humanist leader told the inquiry.
The inquiry's worship and life events impact hearings began on Tuesday, with evidence from faith leaders from different religions including the Catholic Church, the Jewish Council of Scotland, the Free Church of Scotland as well as from the Humanist Society Scotland and the .
Fraser Sutherland, of the Humanist Society Scotland, said as recently as 2024 weddings were going ahead which had been postponed during the pandemic, and branded some restrictions 'bizarre'.
Mr Sutherland said: 'We did also see a significant increase in small weddings. There were quite a lot of people who were relieved they didn't have to have a big wedding.
'The restrictions for masks for couples was removed. There was a bizarre circumstance where there was no kissing allowed.
'In humanist tradition, most of those couples would be already living together.'
All the faith leaders said they were dedicated to sticking to the restrictions. However, Mr Sutherland said that some venues were desperate to generate income and would allow people to break the rules.
Mr Sutherland said: 'There was a lot of push-back particularly as the pandemic pressed on, from couples, from wedding venues, who were keen to get as many people in as possible.
'We had a lot of difficult situations where couples were being told one thing by venues, our celebrant turns up and there's 50 people when there should be 20. We had couples saying 'everyone here is exempt, around mask wearing'.'
The Rev Donald MacDonald ,of the Free Church of Scotland, based in the Isle of Skye, said: 'We tend to get a number of elopement weddings every year – they came to an end when lockdown was announced. All these arrangements in place for a year to 18 months had to be cancelled.
'Others delayed planning of their weddings. We did schedule a meeting with government representatives to try to argue for permission of having weddings – within our tradition a number of folk moving in together is not an option before marriage.'
Ephraim Borowski, of the Jewish Council of Scotland, said: 'It might have been useful to have a hotline, or some kind of exception-granting mechanism, completely general, which would give us a definite answer, I think that would have helped.'
The Rt Rev Brian McGee, of the Bishops' Conference of Scotland, said that NHS workers were deprived of pastoral care in hospitals, along with sick or dying people, owing to restrictions.
He said that mass could only be celebrated in a church, and that faith leaders were not consulted about the decision to close places of worship in the second lockdown.
Mr McGee said: 'We've talked about ceremonies but when people were in hospital, they were looked after by NHS staff who were in fear for their own lives.
'When people are sick and they're nervous they would want the comfort of a visit, some pastoral care and prayers being said for them.
'I know the difficulty for that and infection control but could there have been more consideration given.'
The impact of restrictions on funeral rites was compared to 'physical pain' by other religious leaders, the inquiry heard.
Omar Afzal, from the Scottish Association of Mosques, said: 'I would describe the effect of not being able to fulfil religious rites as almost like physical pain in the effect it had.'
Ravi Ladva, from the Scottish Hindu Foundation, said: 'We didn't question why only six members are allowed in the crematorium. A lot of our community members are on the front line of the NHS and public services. As much as I would like to mourn, my duty to my community and the rest of Scotland comes first.
'Through the pandemic we were fortunate to scramble together online services where it still maintained some semblance of community.
'It does require review and has not been forgotten how we were treated and our practises and rituals were portrayed.'
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Who won the first NYC Democratic mayoral primary debate?
Ex-Gov. Andrew Cuomo won Wednesday night's Democratic mayoral primary debate — because his opponents' relentless attacks did more to elevate him than drag him down, a Post panel of veteran campaign strategists said. The thrice-elected Democrat took some gut punches, but there was no knockout blow or major blunder on his part, the political analysts on both sides of the aisle said. 'I tuned in to see a mayoral debate, not a debate about Andrew Cuomo,' quipped campaign strategist Ken Frydman of the nine-person debate moderated by NBC 4 NY and Politico. 'By making Andrew the debate, they elevated him,' said Frydman. Because Cuomo was constantly under fire, he got more airtime to respond to each jab and by default dominated the more than two-hour debate, the political experts said. 'Everyone tried to land a punch on Andrew Cuomo, but failed,' said campaign strategist O' Brien 'OB' Murray. 'The first 20 minutes gave Cuomo the center stage, literally and figuratively,' he said, referring to the ex-gov's position in the middle of the group of candidates standing on the dais at 30 Rockefeller Center. 'He handled the attacks and was able to deflect. They actually gave him more airtime than they should have,' Murray said. Republican campaign strategist Bill O'Reilly said the verbal pummeling Cuomo received from most of his eight primary rivals does not alter his status as the front-runner for the Democratic nomination. 'It was Andrew Cuomo vs. the Lilliputians, and the Lilliputians fell short. That's the bottom line,' O'Reilly said. 'Someone needed to trip up the former governor to slow his momentum, but it was clear from the jump that wouldn't happen. Cuomo hasn't lost a step since leaving Albany, and the field lacked the skill to crack him.' Cuomo also counter-attacked, taking shots at his biggest threats in the polls — 33-year-old Democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani, a state Assembly member from Queens, and City Comptroller Brad Lander. The former governor delivered the best line when he said, '[President] Trump would go through Mamdani like a hot knife through butter,' O'Reilly noted. Frydman said the candidates and moderators did force Cuomo to squirm to defend his record as governor, including his controversial nursing home policy during the COVID-19 pandemic and his approval of the unpopular 2019 bail reforms. They also tried to make him answer for the spate of sexual misconduct accusations leveled against him — which he denied, but which forced his resignation in 2021. Some of the other candidates had 'breakout moments' — including former Bronx Assemblyman Michael Blake, City Council Speaker Adrienne Adams and Mamdani, said political adviser Yvette Buckner. 'That will have voters wanting to learn more about them, their policies and their candidacy,' she said. Frydman too said Adams' performance 'moved the needle' for her campaign, which has been slow to gain momentum despite support from state Attorney General Letitia James. 'She introduced herself to Democratic voters well enough on substance to move up in ranked-choice voting,' he said. But Cuomo's comfortable lead over second-place Mamdani in recent polls should hold, Frydman said. O'Reilly agreed, but said Mamdani remains Cuomo's 'greatest threat' for the nomination in the June 24 primary. Two of the panelists agreed that Lander is competent, but his persona didn't translate on TV. 'He oozes insincerity in a car-salesman-type way,' O'Reilly said. But he said Brooklyn state Sen. Zellnor Myrie's sincerity came across 'easily,' calling him a rising star in the Democratic Party. Murray concurred, saying Lander has a 'stage presence for radio and a delivery for print. He confirmed why he has his wife and daughter on videos, instead of himself.' Another candidate, former city Comptroller Scott Stringer, who previously ran for mayor in 2021, didn't break through, the panelists said. 'Stringer was Stringer — flat, and after a second run for mayor, still didn't connect to voters,' Murray said. All but two of the Democratic contenders will debate again on June 12, save for Blake and state Sen. Jessica Ramos, who failed to meet the campaign funding threshold. Nine days of early voting will precede the primary, beginning on June 14.
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
A New Social Security Garnishment Is Set to Begin This Summer -- but There Are 2 Legal Ways Most Retirees Can Avoid It
Getting as much as possible out of Social Security isn't a luxury for most retirees -- it's an absolute necessity. This summer, the Trump administration will begin garnishing up to 15% of Social Security benefits for delinquent federal student loan borrowers. Two perfectly legal solutions exist that may allow a majority of tardy federal student loan borrowers to avoid having their Social Security checks garnished. The $23,760 Social Security bonus most retirees completely overlook › For most retirees, Social Security isn't just income that's deposited into their checking or savings account on a monthly basis. It represents a financial lifeline that many would likely struggle to make do without. In 2023, Social Security was responsible for lifting 22 million people above the federal poverty line, some 16.3 million of whom were adults aged 65 and above. Meanwhile, 23 years of annual surveys from national pollster Gallup find that up to 90% of retirees require their monthly benefit, to some degree, to make ends meet. Getting as much out of Social Security isn't a luxury -- it's often a necessity. But beginning sometime this summer, select retirees can expect their Social Security checks to shrink by up to 15%. For some of these beneficiaries, it's income they simply can't afford to lose. For well over six decades, the federal government has played a role in subsidizing and guaranteeing student loans. As of April 2025, the U.S. Department of Education (DOE) notes that 42.7 million Americans had a cumulative $1.6 trillion in federal student loans outstanding. However, the collection of federal student loan repayments was halted during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic (March 2020) and was simply never lifted. According to the DOE, more than 5 million borrowers haven't made a payment in 360 days, and another 4 million are between 91 and 180 days late on their monthly payments. While higher education student loans may sound like something that affects relatively younger Americans, they've become a prominent issue for retirees. Whereas the aggregate number of student loan borrowers under the age of 62 has declined by 1% from 2017 to 2023, the number of student loan borrowers aged 62 and above has surged 59% to approximately 2.7 million over the same period, based on data from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). Per the CFPB, an estimated 452,000 of these senior borrowers have defaulted on their federal student loans and are likely receiving Social Security benefits. Since President Donald Trump took office in January, his administration has targeted perceived government fraud and is aiming to make federal operations more efficient. One of the many changes under Trump, vis-à-vis the Social Security Administration (SSA), is the reimplementation of Social Security garnishments for delinquent federal student loan borrowers. Beginning "sometime this summer," per Trump's administration, tardy borrowers receiving a Social Security benefit -- this applies to all types of beneficiaries (retired workers, survivors of deceased workers, and workers with disabilities) -- could see their payouts garnished by up to 15%. The one caveat to this garnishment is that recipients must be left with at least a $750 monthly Social Security benefit. Thus, if your normal payout is $825 per month, the maximum garnishment would be $75 per month instead of the flat 15%. Additionally, the Trump administration isn't planning to offer delinquent federal student loan borrowers a 65-day warning prior to potential garnishment, as has been customary in the past. Rather, communications sent out provide just 30 days' notice that garnishments are possible if borrowers are still in default. According to the CFPB, 37% of the Social Security beneficiaries who have a federal student loan outstanding (delinquent or not) currently rely on their monthly check from America's leading retirement program for 90% (or more) of their income. Even a 15% garnishment for defaulted borrowers in this category has the potential to be financially devastating. It goes without saying that the easiest way to avoid this new garnishment by the Trump administration is to not be in default on your federal student loan(s). But for the roughly 452,000 Social Security retirees set to be impacted by this change in policy, there are two under-the-radar yet perfectly legal solutions that should allow a majority to avoid having their payouts garnished. To begin with, some of these defaulted borrowers may qualify for the Total and Permanent Disability (TPD) discharge program, which cancels federal student loans and stops forced collections. As the CFPB pointed out in a January research report, the DOE entered into a data-matching agreement with the SSA in 2021 to automate the TPD eligibility and federal student loan cancellation processes for beneficiaries who become disabled prior to reaching full retirement age (currently age 67 for anyone born in or after 1960). However, this TPD application process is failing Social Security beneficiaries who become permanently disabled after they reach full retirement age. The CFPB notes that the onus of applying for a TPD discharge of their federal student loans and/or garnishment falls onto aged beneficiaries. Census survey data shows that approximately 22% of Social Security recipients with federal student loans report having a permanent disability, per the CFPB's report. Social Security retirees currently in default on their federal student loan(s) can also potentially avoid having their monthly check garnished by applying for a financial hardship with the DOE. Defaulted borrowers will be required to provide documentation of their income and qualifying expenses to the DOE. If an individual's qualifying expenses are larger than their documented income -- especially pertaining to a possible 15% garnishment of their Social Security payout -- the DOE will likely grant a financial hardship exemption. Based on data from the Federal Reserve Board's Survey of Household Economics and Decisionmaking, the CFPB estimates that a whopping 82% of Social Security beneficiaries currently in default on their federal student loans would qualify for the hardship exemption -- in other words, their qualified expenses would exceed their documented income. Yet, a 2015 Government Accountability Office report found that fewer than 10% of Social Security recipients with forced federal student loan collections applied for a hardship exemption. If delinquent borrowers were to simply apply for this financial hardship with the DOE, a majority would likely be granted it. If you're like most Americans, you're a few years (or more) behind on your retirement savings. But a handful of little-known could help ensure a boost in your retirement income. One easy trick could pay you as much as $23,760 more... each year! Once you learn how to maximize your Social Security benefits, we think you could retire confidently with the peace of mind we're all after. Join Stock Advisor to learn more about these Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. A New Social Security Garnishment Is Set to Begin This Summer -- but There Are 2 Legal Ways Most Retirees Can Avoid It was originally published by The Motley Fool Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Epoch Times
8 hours ago
- Epoch Times
$38,000 Fines Waived for Ontario Amish Families Convicted for Not Using ArriveCan App
Over $38,000 in fines have been waived and convictions set aside for a group of people from an Ontario Amish community who were convicted for not using the ArriveCan app during COVID-19 lockdowns. Lawyers with The Democracy Fund (TDF) won the case after seven months of negotiations and multiple court appearances on behalf of the group known to avoid modern technology due to their faith.
