O/T Which jab have you had?

[Ericsladkilnhurst]

This site may not be like the Barnsley BBS site which is like a Momentum offshoot but surely there's always been more lefties on here than righties?

See if we can find a left back out of the lefties.

[howdydoo]

Your post was on 3rd April. Not outrageous of me to think you'd moved on from events of January.* If you were rehashing your thoughts of that period, maybe you should have made that clear.

What is clear is this: it was the failure of AZ to supply on time which severly hampered the EU vaccine programme and cost very many lives.

I know you are desparate spin this fact to fix the blame on a failure of the EU to run it as an anti EU story.

You are at pains to try and draw some kind of link between Brexit (which, by implication, was crucial the success of our vaccine roll-out), a spiteful response from the EU towards AZ (which must therefore be born out of envy and annoyance that we left) and the failure of the roll out in EU countries (which is clear evidence of the failure of the EU a trading bloc). Maybe youre right. I think its a concoction cobbled together by Brexiteers to cover over the shortcomings of Brexit.

The frustration shown towards AZ comes from their failure to supply on time. It is as simple as that.

This is the most disingenuous post I've ever read on here.

So wrong, on so many levels.

I don't know how the rollout of any vaccine that is proven to save lives can be considered a failure. You really should refuse yours and ask for it to be administered to someone in the EU.

Maybe we should be pointing fingers to establish the origins of this virus.

[great_fire]

This is the most disingenuous post I've ever read on here.

So wrong, on so many levels.

I don't know how the rollout of any vaccine that is proven to save lives can be considered a failure. You really should refuse yours and ask for it to be administered to someone in the EU.

Maybe we should be pointing fingers to establish the origins of this virus.

It's called confirmation bias, people tend to pay little attention to information that challenges an existing belief or hypothesis, and focus intently on any supportive information. He's ignoring any anything that makes the EU look bad (vaccines cock-up) while concentrating on stories that make Brexit look bad (youths rioting in Northern Ireland).

To be fair, a Brexit supporter might do the same thing only the other way round.

[gm_gm]

It's called confirmation bias, people tend to pay little attention to information that challenges an existing belief or hypothesis, and focus intently on any supportive information. He's ignoring any anything that makes the EU look bad (vaccines cock-up) while concentrating on stories that make Brexit look bad (youths rioting in Northern Ireland).

To be fair, a Brexit supporter might do the same thing only the other way round.

Thats a fair analysis but even the biggest EU cult member must see that yesterday numbers as a result of being out of the club is a fantastic achievement.

Theres an FT article from the CEO of Moderna saying that the UK and Canada signed pre-deals in 2 days, he said dealing with the EU was nearly impossible because of the tiers of committees who then have to report back to the individual countries direct. Then two a three come back and ask daft questions like what colour vans will it be delivered in and the process starts all over again

I for hope the EU can finally get their act together

[ragingpup]

So what are you saying, raging? That you would prefer that these threads be based upon your flawed understanding of the proposed legislation (probably based upon tweets from your poltical heroes) rather then what it actually says? Fair enough, but I disagree and if that makes me an arse in your eyes then I am cool with that.

The proposed legislation isn't extensive. I haven't bothered with a word count, but I would estimate the relevant clauses to run to about 3-400 words.

So if you don't think the Home Secretary isn't going to be re-writing the regulations for every proposed demonstration, how do you say that she has "the power to decide whether individual protests can go ahead" as you claimed earlier. It clearly can't.

I'm not going to reproduce the actual wording of the proposed legislation again, becasue it appears to serve no purpose with you other than to casue upset, but nothing within them pemits a 'police leader' or anyone else to 'deny a protest because they think there will be "serious noise".

Nothing within the proposed legislation would enable a police officer to arrest, because "a person over there was seriously annoyed", other than in your fantasy interpretation.

The fact is that the proposed legislation extends and clarifies police powers in relation to demonstrations to protect communities from:

1. Intimidation or harassment of persons of reasonable firmness with the characteristics of persons likely to be in the vicinity; or
2. It may cause such persons to suffer serious unease, alarm or distress;
or
3. Serious disruption to the activities of an organisation which are carried on in the vicinity of a public procession, or
4. Serious disruption to the life of the community

Personally, I don't think that the effects numbered 1 to 4 are desirable. Again, if that makes me 'the most establishment figure on here' then I will wear that title with pride and my thanks to you. I think that people who have been affected in the ways set out in points 1 to 4 might have a different title for you - one that has its origin in Anglo-Saxon English.

So let's cut to the chase. If the EDL organised a static protest outside your college due to a, perhaps unwarranted, fear about what you were teaching and had a sound sytem that allowed them to disrupt teaching activites, would you be fine with that and entirely happy if the police said 'sorry sir we have no powers to impose conditions over seriously disruptive noise'? It's a simple question that lends itself to a yes or no answer.

You said: "how do you say that she has "the power to decide whether individual protests can go ahead" as you claimed earlier. It clearly can't."

"The Home Secretary will have the power, through secondary legislation, to define and give examples of “serious disruption to the life of the community” and “serious disruption to the activities of an organisation which are carried out in the vicinity of the procession/assembly/one-person protest”. These regulation-making powers will clarify ambiguous cases where, if they arise, it would not be clear whether the threshold for the use of such powers have been reached. This will enable the police to make use of their powers with the confidence that they are doing so legally." https://www.gov.uk/government/public...wers-factsheet

1) Yet you are arguing that she cannot? How so?

You then say: "I'm not going to reproduce the actual wording of the proposed legislation again...but nothing within them pemits a 'police leader' or anyone else to 'deny a protest because they think there will be "serious noise".

"This measure will broaden the range of circumstances in which the police can impose conditions on protests, including a single person protest, to include where noise causes a significant impact on those in the vicinity or serious disruption to the running of an organisation." https://www.gov.uk/government/public...wers-factsheet

2) So if no one will deny a protest there will be serious noise, why is the proposed legislation worded in this way? What is it's purpose?

You say "Nothing within the proposed legislation would enable a police officer to arrest, because "a person over there was seriously annoyed", other than in your fantasy interpretation"

People found guilty of this new offence, which includes causing “serious annoyance” or “serious inconvenience” – or even just causing the risk that said annoyance and inconvenience will take place – are liable to be imprisoned for up to ten years if convicted on indictment or 12 months if convicted summarily. https://www.ier.org.uk/news/whats-wr...d-courts-bill/

3. Yes, I phrased the idea of a police officer arresting someone because someone over there was seriously annoyed for comic value. But seriously, if you feel that nothing in the proposed legislation will lead to arrest for causing serious annoyance, why is it worded thus? If you have an offence defined as "causing serious annoyance" (sic, I'm a layman remember) surely a person will be able to commit the offence of "causing serious annoyance" - when you say "Nothing within the proposed legislation would enable a police officer to arrest, because "a person over there was seriously annoyed" are you simply missing the comic spin I put on it, or are you seriously saying that no-one will be able to be arrested for the crime of "serious annoyance"?

You keep harping on about the protests outside a college. If we had introduced a policy of teaching something that a group of people felt was damaging then I would defend their right to draw public attention to it. For example the recent protests outside schools by parents who were concerned about a PSH curriculum conveying information on gay couples. I didn't agree with the protestors but they have a right to express their point and draw public attention to their argument. In my view it is their right. The fact that you are using this quite absurd and infinitely unlikely scenario to back up your argument kind of gives away your desperation. The fact is that protests that cause such serious inconvenience, noise and nuisance are relatively rare and affect very few of us. Who on this site has been a victim of such protests for example? And even if it has, we have to weigh up if these proposals are a proportional response and if we are giving up more than we should. I go back to the original point about the 'Brexit is Cancelled' protest that no doubt would have brought some on this MB out onto the streets. It is about defending their right to protest with impact, as well as those of left and right wing groups.

[WanChaiMiller]

This is the most disingenuous post I've ever read on here.

So wrong, on so many levels.

I don't know how the rollout of any vaccine that is proven to save lives can be considered a failure. You really should refuse yours and ask for it to be administered to someone in the EU.

Maybe we should be pointing fingers to establish the origins of this virus.

Read my post properly. If you understand it youre off your rocket.

[WanChaiMiller]

This is the most disingenuous post I've ever read on here.

So wrong, on so many levels.

I don't know how the rollout of any vaccine that is proven to save lives can be considered a failure. You really should refuse yours and ask for it to be administered to someone in the EU.

Maybe we should be pointing fingers to establish the origins of this virus.

You might want to point out where I said the vaccine is a failure?

[ragingpup]

Thats a fair analysis but even the biggest EU cult member must see that yesterday numbers as a result of being out of the club is a fantastic achievement.

Theres an FT article from the CEO of Moderna saying that the UK and Canada signed pre-deals in 2 days, he said dealing with the EU was nearly impossible because of the tiers of committees who then have to report back to the individual countries direct. Then two a three come back and ask daft questions like what colour vans will it be delivered in and the process starts all over again

I for hope the EU can finally get their act together

When you say "even the biggest EU cult member must see that yesterday numbers as a result of being out of the club is a fantastic achievement" are you referring to the UK's high vaccine numbers?

If so, aren't you aware that the UK and any EU member could have done exactly what the UK did even if they were still EU members? Although the CEO of Moderna does have a point about the difficulty of 27 countries attempting to work together being somewhat problematic in emergency scenarios! I think the EU acted with best intentions, in trying to avoid internal conflicts over procurement, but the disadvantages outweighed them in this situation I think.

[howdydoo]

You might want to point out where I said the vaccine is a failure?

You're struggling Wan.

Read my post again. That's a good lad.

[WanChaiMiller]

You're struggling Wan.

Read my post again. That's a good lad.

Idiot.