Dave78 Posted October 15, 2021 Share Posted October 15, 2021 6 hours ago, phart said: The really interesting thread that runs through all this is the Russian link. Big Brother Watch, which is pushing this freedom of speech thing with David was set up by the same guy who created the Conservative friends of Russia group, was chief executive of Vote Leave for brexit and say no to AV which kept us having first past the post. Big money has been piling into the Tories from Russia and Davis was earmarked for being targetted for compromise by them by a previous foreign secretary. The same foreign secretary who had been targetted by the Friends of Russia group who had found an old dating profile pic and released it. Interesting! More details phart? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phart Posted October 15, 2021 Share Posted October 15, 2021 12 minutes ago, Dave78 said: Interesting! More details phart? https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/excabinet-minister-claims-russia-is-digging-up-dirt-on-boris-johnson-to-discredit-him-a3440876.html https://web.archive.org/web/20130313030126/http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/article/plain-sight-kremlin’s-london-lobby Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morrisandmoo Posted October 16, 2021 Share Posted October 16, 2021 On 10/14/2021 at 1:34 PM, phart said: It's not an attack on free speech if the government was doing it would be. Private companies doing it isn't. Not creating a good debating environment but then neither is putting out rhetorical speeches with no opposition either. I think we need to modernise our thinking, and laws, in this respect. It was fine in the past when the Goverment were the main ones regulating people's speech and activities - on the streets, from the pulpit or in the printed press. Now digital platforms are taking on broad regulatory powers governing people's interactions (replacing the role of national governments in some domains). I think it's ok to require those digital platforms to have regard to fundamental societal principles when formulating their regulations/terms of conditions/policies. One of those principles for me would be free speech. I wouldn't be looking to competition laws to protect us. I don't really want Amazon broken up - it provides an excellent service to me. But I am cool with them having to pay regard to fair or free trade, or whatever is important to society at the time, when framing their rules governing seller and buyer interactions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exile Posted October 16, 2021 Share Posted October 16, 2021 14 hours ago, phart said: https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/excabinet-minister-claims-russia-is-digging-up-dirt-on-boris-johnson-to-discredit-him-a3440876.html https://web.archive.org/web/20130313030126/http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/article/plain-sight-kremlin’s-london-lobby Isn't Boris Johnson's 'dirt' - misdemeanours and dodgy words & actions - already in plain sight, but people still vote for him? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaid Posted October 18, 2021 Share Posted October 18, 2021 I see David Davies is still complaining about being silenced, in a column in the Daily Telegraph. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orraloon Posted October 18, 2021 Share Posted October 18, 2021 19 minutes ago, aaid said: I see David Davies is still complaining about being silenced, in a column in the Daily Telegraph. 😂 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phart Posted October 18, 2021 Share Posted October 18, 2021 On 10/16/2021 at 12:08 PM, exile said: Isn't Boris Johnson's 'dirt' - misdemeanours and dodgy words & actions - already in plain sight, but people still vote for him? No idea. There's so much it might very well be possible some still unearthed. Folk do still vote for him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaid Posted October 18, 2021 Share Posted October 18, 2021 1 hour ago, phart said: No idea. There's so much it might very well be possible some still unearthed. Folk do still vote for him. I think the fact that his many and various character flaws are priced in to some extent, it would have to be something major to derail him at the moment. That said though, when the time is right I expect he'll be thrown to the wolves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bonzo Posted October 24, 2021 Share Posted October 24, 2021 We were at a gig in the Barras last night, getting the passports scanned on the way in was absolutely no hassle at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lamia Posted October 24, 2021 Share Posted October 24, 2021 52 minutes ago, bonzo said: We were at a gig in the Barras last night, getting the passports scanned on the way in was absolutely no hassle at all. Did you manage to cope with the trauma and chaos of updating the app? 🤔 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bonzo Posted October 24, 2021 Share Posted October 24, 2021 2 minutes ago, Lamia said: Did you manage to cope with the trauma and chaos of updating the app? 🤔 It was all very stressful, typed in my number and noticed it had been updated 😆 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morrisandmoo Posted October 25, 2021 Share Posted October 25, 2021 Covid in Scotland: Hundreds refused entry in vaccine passport 'chaos' - BBC News I doubt it was "chaos". Be interesting how many exclusions were a result of non-vaccination vs poor administration (on the part of the government, the individual or the venue), as 550 seems like quite a lot. Nobody should be surprised at this measure causing confrontation though. It's design is discriminatory and is always going to cause social disharmony. As before, making folk unhappy and/or discriminating against them can be justified where there are measurable benefits to society as a whole. It just so happens that potential benefits are very limited in the case of vaccine passports - despite the incessant repetition from the Scottish Government that the measures are "proportionate". Is anybody testing (or already tested) this measure against human rights legislation? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaid Posted October 25, 2021 Share Posted October 25, 2021 (edited) 1 hour ago, Morrisandmoo said: Covid in Scotland: Hundreds refused entry in vaccine passport 'chaos' - BBC News I doubt it was "chaos". Be interesting how many exclusions were a result of non-vaccination vs poor administration (on the part of the government, the individual or the venue), as 550 seems like quite a lot. Nobody should be surprised at this measure causing confrontation though. It's design is discriminatory and is always going to cause social disharmony. As before, making folk unhappy and/or discriminating against them can be justified where there are measurable benefits to society as a whole. It just so happens that potential benefits are very limited in the case of vaccine passports - despite the incessant repetition from the Scottish Government that the measures are "proportionate". Is anybody testing (or already tested) this measure against human rights legislation? It’s not as if this hasn’t been widely publicised, so there’s no real excuse for someone who is unvaccinated to have any complaints if they’re turned away. They’re just at it. I see that the main cause of complaint is that door staff were abused when they were turning people away. I don’t condone anyone being abused when they are doing their job but I imagine that door staff turn away large numbers of people on a regular basis for a variety of reasons, too drunk, too young, too old, wearing trainers, not wearing trainers, wearing the wrong kind of trainers and I suspect that not all of them are quiet about it, yet I don’t see their employers being up in arms about that, so any comments of this sort are completely hypocritical. 550 people being turned away doesn’t sound like a massive amount to me compared to the number of people out on a weekend. I’d imagine it’s less than 1%. On a legal basis these measures aren’t discriminatory, being unvaccinated isn’t a protected category. I’m not aware on any specific legal challenge around vaccine passports specifically but some of the different regulations have been subject to judicial review and have been found to be proportionate. edit. A legal challenge failed last month . https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-58747315 Edited October 25, 2021 by aaid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThistleWhistle Posted October 25, 2021 Share Posted October 25, 2021 1 hour ago, Morrisandmoo said: Covid in Scotland: Hundreds refused entry in vaccine passport 'chaos' - BBC News I doubt it was "chaos". Be interesting how many exclusions were a result of non-vaccination vs poor administration (on the part of the government, the individual or the venue), as 550 seems like quite a lot. Nobody should be surprised at this measure causing confrontation though. It's design is discriminatory and is always going to cause social disharmony. As before, making folk unhappy and/or discriminating against them can be justified where there are measurable benefits to society as a whole. It just so happens that potential benefits are very limited in the case of vaccine passports - despite the incessant repetition from the Scottish Government that the measures are "proportionate". Is anybody testing (or already tested) this measure against human rights legislation? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phart Posted October 25, 2021 Share Posted October 25, 2021 That tweet has a lot of covid grifters i've encountered in the last 19 months commenting on it. Was a trip down memory lane of all the folk who said last June Covid was over, it was a casedemic etc. Ivor cummings, James melville et al. If theres a qualitative difference between being vaccinated and unvaccinated, and one state significantly increases the chances of negatve affects on innocent bystanders being negatively affected and/or societal wide problems then of course governments are going to try and mitigate that, and as always they're going to use authoratative measures and very often they overstep. Same as they did with all the measures after 7/7 etc. It's the mitigation of competing rights. Peoples right to do what they want. Peoples rights to not be denied care cause folk doing what they want is driving a pandemic. NHS staff right to not have to pick up the pieces of failed policy. Peoples rights to have the same access as everyone else. etc etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phart Posted October 25, 2021 Share Posted October 25, 2021 Are folk against passports as a concept? Freedom of movement with zero restrictions? What's the rationale behind where one chooses to delineate between what passports are aceeptable and not acceptable. It's interesting to think about. I liked the Schengen zone type things, but at the same time you can see the rationale for passports. The yellow fever one i used in 2019 is to prevent transmission and it can't even occur human to human, it has to be human>mosquito>human. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orraloon Posted October 25, 2021 Share Posted October 25, 2021 1 hour ago, ThistleWhistle said: That's more like it. Just say it as it is. A bit like Putin at the start of the pandemic. "Four weeks at home or five years in prison - your choice". But it isn't her who is creating two different classes. It's the people who are choosing not to be vaccinated who are deciding for themselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phart Posted October 25, 2021 Share Posted October 25, 2021 16 minutes ago, Orraloon said: That's more like it. Just say it as it is. A bit like Putin at the start of the pandemic. "Four weeks at home or five years in prison - your choice". But it isn't her who is creating two different classes. It's the people who are choosing not to be vaccinated who are deciding for themselves. I'd not go that far. You can't drive without a license. It's not an affront to liberty to have that stipulation here's several links of folk dying while learning to dive, there's hundreds of examples, as i suspect the taking the vaccine will be thought of as risky. There is some risk ofc same with having to learn to drive. https://metro.co.uk/2018/08/28/learner-driver-killed-when-car-stalls-on-level-crossing-as-examiner-jumps-out-7888291/ https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-46950433 https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/darren-jobling-motorbike-crash-bedlington-19271170 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThistleWhistle Posted October 25, 2021 Share Posted October 25, 2021 54 minutes ago, Orraloon said: That's more like it. Just say it as it is. A bit like Putin at the start of the pandemic. "Four weeks at home or five years in prison - your choice". But it isn't her who is creating two different classes. It's the people who are choosing not to be vaccinated who are deciding for themselves. ‘Paved with good intentions’ for me. My issue is that it sets a precedent – what happens if next time you don’t agree with it even if they think they’re taking a decision in your best possible interest? Where do you draw the line too for example is double jabbed enough or if you opt out of the booster(s) as you originally didn’t sign up for something that meant you transmitted like an unvaccinated person after 10 weeks anyway is that you relegated to the underclass? Do you drop it down into education where health benefit for the recipient was insufficient for the JCVI to endorse and/or into after-school clubs? Larry Flanagan from the teaching unions pushed hard for kids to get vaccinated and he is now head of Protection and Wellbeing for kids under the SFA – what about if he decides you’ve got be jabbed to play? I can sort of understand it in NZ given they didn’t fuck it up to start with so had barely any natural immunity and a slow rollout of vaccine originally. Here we’ve got only 5m (c.10%) of the eligible population who’ve decided against it so we’re arguably more of a risk to them than they are to us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phart Posted October 25, 2021 Share Posted October 25, 2021 What's the precedent being set exactly? Bar it being the first pandemic so everything is a precedent anyway? Where's the evidence that you "transmit like an unvaccinated person after 10 weeks"? I've posted numerous studies to the contrary on here. There's 21 million unvaccinated people in the UK. Only 80% of eligible people (over 12's) have been vaccinated. I think there's a real problem with the quality of information people have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phart Posted October 25, 2021 Share Posted October 25, 2021 The studies show same level of viral genetic material in swabs but this isn't a synonym for transmissability. Although it has been said on social media like it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThistleWhistle Posted October 25, 2021 Share Posted October 25, 2021 35 minutes ago, phart said: I'd not go that far. You can't drive without a license. It's not an affront to liberty to have that stipulation here's several links of folk dying while learning to dive, there's hundreds of examples, as i suspect the taking the vaccine will be thought of as risky. There is some risk ofc same with having to learn to drive. https://metro.co.uk/2018/08/28/learner-driver-killed-when-car-stalls-on-level-crossing-as-examiner-jumps-out-7888291/ https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-46950433 https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/darren-jobling-motorbike-crash-bedlington-19271170 I'd say there though you know the risks before getting in the car - a quick Google search shows global and/or local fatality/accident figures in a year split by age, sex, religion, day of the week etc and how that has increased/ decreased over decades. I'd never in a million years learn to drive/drive in Nepal but felt here that it was within my risk appetite. And you don't have to take a test every 5 months For this though we're looking into a crystal ball, learning on the job and making educated guesses on how things will look - if folk knew that the AZ would transmit like an unvaccinated person after 10 weeks of second dose doubt the uptake would have been as impressive to be honest. This guy has risk of myocarditis at 8 per million in 12-15 year olds but that doesn't seem to differentiate between sex when males are much more susceptible so would be higher for boys than girls presumably - again if these figures were widely disclosed it would be up to the risk appetite of the various parents before deciding and doubt it would boost uptake: https://inews.co.uk/news/i-wouldnt-give-my-9-year-old-a-covid-jab-says-expert-who-found-vaccinating-5-11-year-olds-reduces-1208329 I can understand making it a requirement working in nursing homes or being involved with high risk patients in a hospital but think it really needs to be scrutinized how far this cultural changed is rolled out as governments aren't renowned to relinquish power gathered easily. In terms of passports I think it should be the same sort of scenario - you should need one to travel as you shouldn't be allowed to carry something out or in of the country but equally you should be allowed to travel freely within a predetermined proximity without carrying papers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orraloon Posted October 25, 2021 Share Posted October 25, 2021 37 minutes ago, ThistleWhistle said: ‘Paved with good intentions’ for me. My issue is that it sets a precedent – what happens if next time you don’t agree with it even if they think they’re taking a decision in your best possible interest? Where do you draw the line too for example is double jabbed enough or if you opt out of the booster(s) as you originally didn’t sign up for something that meant you transmitted like an unvaccinated person after 10 weeks anyway is that you relegated to the underclass? Do you drop it down into education where health benefit for the recipient was insufficient for the JCVI to endorse and/or into after-school clubs? Larry Flanagan from the teaching unions pushed hard for kids to get vaccinated and he is now head of Protection and Wellbeing for kids under the SFA – what about if he decides you’ve got be jabbed to play? I can sort of understand it in NZ given they didn’t fuck it up to start with so had barely any natural immunity and a slow rollout of vaccine originally. Here we’ve got only 5m (c.10%) of the eligible population who’ve decided against it so we’re arguably more of a risk to them than they are to us. I don't agree with a lot of the stuff that governments impose on me. You either just get on with it, or find a way round it and hope you don't get caught. You weigh up the likely punishment if you get caught and decide for yourself if you think the risk is worth it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orraloon Posted October 25, 2021 Share Posted October 25, 2021 7 minutes ago, ThistleWhistle said: For this though we're looking into a crystal ball, learning on the job and making educated guesses on how things will look - if folk knew that the AZ would transmit like an unvaccinated person after 10 weeks of second dose doubt the uptake would have been as impressive to be honest. Where are you getting this stuff? I'd like to read that study if you have a link to it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThistleWhistle Posted October 25, 2021 Share Posted October 25, 2021 20 minutes ago, phart said: What's the precedent being set exactly? Bar it being the first pandemic so everything is a precedent anyway? Where's the evidence that you "transmit like an unvaccinated person after 10 weeks"? I've posted numerous studies to the contrary on here. There's 21 million unvaccinated people in the UK. Only 80% of eligible people (over 12's) have been vaccinated. I think there's a real problem with the quality of information people have. The top two show the comparative transmission risk for Alpha and Delta based on whether the person transmitting is vax'd or not. You can see Pfizer is better than AZ, but both are less effective against Delta. Indeed, after 10 weeks, AZ seems to lose all its effectiveness. 2/ Is that not the main reason we're scrambling about for boosters? Javid at his last briefing had the figure at 5m of people who were unvaccinated who had been previously invited that they were urging to get it done - no idea where he got it from to be honest but possibly that was the number over 18 and didn't include schools. It's surely a fairly big precedent to set that you need proof of vaccination for a job and that you can lose your employment for choosing against it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.