# FILE NAME: 00001651.soc
# TITLE: Should there be a ban on non-essential travel? [7792238c5b1153b023356211c2278ffa]
# DESCRIPTION: 
# DATA TYPE: soc
# MODIFICATION TYPE: original
# RELATES TO: 
# RELATED FILES: 
# PUBLICATION DATE: 2025-10-12
# MODIFICATION DATE: 2025-10-12
# NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4
# NUMBER VOTERS: 5
# NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3
# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There should be no ban on non-essential travel.
# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There should not be a ban on non-essential travel.  People need to look after their health and well being by travelling.  The definition of non-essential travel is very subjective and so it is unfair to place a ban on it.  People can make their own minds up with reference to climate change or other issues regarding their own travel arrangements and should not be forced into staying in the same place just because of central authority control.  Travel for pleasure is a great contributor to global peace and understanding.  However, people should be encouraged to consider the carbon footprint of their travel and should be encouraged to consider alternatives to flying.
# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Consensus View: In the opinion of the group, there should not be a ban on non-essential travel. There are many positive reasons for people to travel for non-essential reasons. Firstly, travel is good for physical and mental health. It is important to ensure the travel industry remains functional for the economic health of the nation.  Many families live in different parts of the country, restricting travel would mean they are unable to visit family. Finally, people should be allowed to travel wherever they want in order to exercise their freedom of movement.
# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There should be no ban on non-essential travel. People should be able to travel where they want when they want. However, there should be more information given to people about the environmental impact of their travel.
3: 2,3,4,1
1: 3,4,2,1
1: 3,2,4,1