O/T Which jab have you had?

Printable View

Show 10 post(s) from this thread on one page

13-04-2021, 10:12 AM
howdydoo

Quote:

Originally Posted by clarkey1974

Moderna jab been rolled out at Sheffield arena...

That’s a vaccine not a pop group.!.

Don't be so bloody sure :O

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UChH...rm8yQ/featured
13-04-2021, 10:55 AM
millertop

Quote:

Originally Posted by howdydoo

It applies to 94.7% of posters on here >;)

I didn’t quote that right did I 😂

Let’s say 45 to 50 yrs old
13-04-2021, 02:24 PM
CAMiller

J&J vaccine being halted here after blood clot scares. It's a single shot so many were wanting it.
13-04-2021, 03:11 PM
ragingpup

Quote:

Originally Posted by KerrAvon

Thank you for numbering your points as it will enable me to deal with them more quickly.

Point 1 - The proposed legisltion permits the Home Secretary to makes regulations 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”. Personally, I doubt whether that will ever be necessary whilst ever people have access to a dictionary and common sense, but I note that you struggled with words like 'serious' earlier in the thread.

I would imagine that the provison is designed to allow any loopholes to be closed off before they can be exploted.

The regulations won't be made on a protest by protest basis, not least because they would have to be passed by each House of Parliament (see clause 54(4)). If they are not made on a protest by protest basis then by definition they do not give the Home Secretary the power to make 'reasonable belief' decsions or 'decide whether individual protests can go ahead' as you have claimed.

You are wrong. You are tilting at windmills. And if you think it is me who is wrong, why don't you put up a link to the clauses that you rely upon? You say that you have read the bill so you must have access to it.

2. There is no reference to 'serious noise' within the bill. There is a power to impose conditions up to and including the banning of a protest if there is a reasonable belief that the noise generated by persons taking part it may result in the intimidation or harassment of persons of reasonable firmness with the characteristics of persons likely to be in the vicinity, or it may cause such persons to suffer serious unease, alarm or distress.

It may just come down to personal values, but I personally don't like the idea of people being caused substantial intimdation or harassment or to suffer serious unease, alarm or distress and have no problems with conditions being imposed upon a protest to prevent it. If you are happy with people being affected in that manner then we disagree.

There is nothing within the legislation that criminalises making noise, 'serious' or otherwise. The offences within it relate to - as they have since 1986 - breaching the terms of a condition imposed upon a protest. So if an EDL protest outside a mosque had a condition imposed upon it 'not to use sound amplification equipment', but the organisers started to use one that 'goes up to 11', collars might be felt and equipment seized. And it really does come down to personal values in that I can't see anything very much wrong with that notion. It balances the EDL's right to protest with the right of people to use the mosque without substantial inteference.

3. I'm sorry to break it to you, but the 'Institute of Employment Rights' article that you have linked to is rubbish. The passage that you have quoted relates to the offence of publc nuisance. As I have explained,that is not a 'new' offence as the article claims, it is a common law offence. Whilst I haven't checked out its history, most common law offences can be traced back for several hundred years. In making it a statutory offence, the government is merely accepting the recomendation of the Law Commission (an independent body), as I have also previously explained.

Not only is the article rubbish, your interpretation of it is too. As I have explained, the offence is concerned with causing serious annoyance or serious inconvenience to the public, not an individual.

I can only recall one prosecution for public nuisance in the 30 years or so that I have been hanging around the criminal justice system. That was of a bloke who managed to close a motorway for several hours by threatening to jump from a bridge. He was protesting about a child custody decision that had gone against him in the Family Court. It's a personal value thing again in that you might celebrate that bloke's right to protest (and it may be that he got a raw deal in the Family Court - it can be tough when a court has to make a child custody choice), but I also care about the people who were seriously annoyed or inconvenienced - people who were tired and wanted to get home, people who wanted to get to their kid's sports day, people who were trying to get to a crucial job interview or catch a flight. Who knows, there might have been a tranpsplant organ delayed - how about that for inconvenience?

I think public nuisance should continue to be an offence.

There seems to be an answer to my 'yes no' EDL question in the torrent of words within your final paragraph. You are a college administrator, but would support the right of a group to protest in a manner that would disrupt the ability to teach within the college... That is just breathtaking. When you next think about why Labour can't win an election to save its life, forget the MSM and reflect on that for a moment.

Nobody is talking about taking away the right to protest. You will still be able to paint your face and cheer a septegenarian MP for giving a new variant of the same speech that he has been giving for the last 30 years or so about whatever cause is fashionable with the Left. As you point out, protests that cause such serious inconvenience, noise and nuisance are relatively rare and affect very few of us and because of that the new powers will be rarely used.

Point 1: In post 287, you referred to my “mistaken belief that the bill gives her (or any Home Secretary) powers to ban marches” and in post 308 stated “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.”
So please clarify for me – can the Home Secretary consider the nature of current protest strategies and then pass legislation that lead to the outlawing of similar strategies in the future? And then, having done that, can reconsider again and pass further legislation outlawing other protest strategies? Can she do that or not? Yes or no?

Point 2: In post 337 you said “but nothing within them permits a 'police leader' or anyone else to 'deny a protest because they think there will be "serious noise" but now are acknowledging the wording of the proposed legislation that says “There is a power to impose conditions up to and including the banning of a protest if there is a reasonable belief that the noise generated by persons taking part it may result in the intimidation or harassment of persons of reasonable firmness…”
So, are you accepting now that a police leader can deny a protest if they feel that the noise will cause such offense to sturdy humans or do you stand by your view that nothing within the legislation permits said leader to deny the protest because of noise?

Point 3. You state that the article I linked to was talking about the existing and old public nuisance law. It is not. It is talking about section 59 of the proposed (amended from the old) legislation which now reads (when cutting through the paragraphing) “A person commits a crime if the person does an act which causes serious harm to a person and if [by definition of ‘serious harm’] as a result the person suffers serious annoyance”.
(Yes I’m aware we’re talking about collective offense here – I’ve already clarified in post 337 that the idea of arresting an individual for being ‘seriously annoying’ to an individual was for humorous spin, clearly still beyond you!)
So - are you saying that you have no objection to this new wording being brought in on the grounds that no one prosecuted under the old public nuisance laws? Why do you think the Government have suddenly changed the wording to this then?
(Seeing as that article was so rubbish, David Allen Green goes into more depth dissecting the wording of this paragraph: https://davidallengreen.com/2021/03/...blic-nuisance/
I assume he has got it wrong also?)

Sorry to have taken your breath away by accepting the public’s right to protest by making a noise outside my college in response to me bringing in curriculum content that is causing them considerable concern. In fairness, I did point out the absurdity of your scenario.

In summary, I wish I shared your confidence and trust in this government.
13-04-2021, 03:15 PM
great_fire

Quote:

Originally Posted by CAMiller

J&J vaccine being halted here after blood clot scares. It's a single shot so many were wanting it.

It's the same type of vaccine as the Astra one.

The Astra one should be suspended here too for under 55s, like in other European countries.
13-04-2021, 03:28 PM
rolymiller

Quote:

Originally Posted by ragingpup

Point 1: In post 287, you referred to my “mistaken belief that the bill gives her (or any Home Secretary) powers to ban marches” and in post 308 stated “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.”
So please clarify for me – can the Home Secretary consider the nature of current protest strategies and then pass legislation that lead to the outlawing of similar strategies in the future? And then, having done that, can reconsider again and pass further legislation outlawing other protest strategies? Can she do that or not? Yes or no?

Point 2: In post 337 you said “but nothing within them permits a 'police leader' or anyone else to 'deny a protest because they think there will be "serious noise" but now are acknowledging the wording of the proposed legislation that says “There is a power to impose conditions up to and including the banning of a protest if there is a reasonable belief that the noise generated by persons taking part it may result in the intimidation or harassment of persons of reasonable firmness…”
So, are you accepting now that a police leader can deny a protest if they feel that the noise will cause such offense to sturdy humans or do you stand by your view that nothing within the legislation permits said leader to deny the protest because of noise?

Point 3. You state that the article I linked to was talking about the existing and old public nuisance law. It is not. It is talking about section 59 of the proposed (amended from the old) legislation which now reads (when cutting through the paragraphing) “A person commits a crime if the person does an act which causes serious harm to a person and if [by definition of ‘serious harm’] as a result the person suffers serious annoyance”.
(Yes I’m aware we’re talking about collective offense here – I’ve already clarified in post 337 that the idea of arresting an individual for being ‘seriously annoying’ to an individual was for humorous spin, clearly still beyond you!)
So - are you saying that you have no objection to this new wording being brought in on the grounds that no one prosecuted under the old public nuisance laws? Why do you think the Government have suddenly changed the wording to this then?
(Seeing as that article was so rubbish, David Allen Green goes into more depth dissecting the wording of this paragraph: https://davidallengreen.com/2021/03/...blic-nuisance/
I assume he has got it wrong also?)

Sorry to have taken your breath away by accepting the public’s right to protest by making a noise outside my college in response to me bringing in curriculum content that is causing them considerable concern. In fairness, I did point out the absurdity of your scenario.

In summary, I wish I shared your confidence and trust in this government.

The biggesr tory who never was! :D
13-04-2021, 04:32 PM
sawmiller

Meanwhile, in Bolsonaro's Brazil.....

the pine overcoats are coming thick and fast...
14-04-2021, 12:20 PM
KerrAvon

Quote:

Originally Posted by ragingpup

Point 1: In post 287, you referred to my “mistaken belief that the bill gives her (or any Home Secretary) powers to ban marches” and in post 308 stated “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.”
So please clarify for me – can the Home Secretary consider the nature of current protest strategies and then pass legislation that lead to the outlawing of similar strategies in the future? And then, having done that, can reconsider again and pass further legislation outlawing other protest strategies? Can she do that or not? Yes or no?

No.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ragingpup

Point 2: In post 337 you said “but nothing within them permits a 'police leader' or anyone else to 'deny a protest because they think there will be "serious noise" but now are acknowledging the wording of the proposed legislation that says “There is a power to impose conditions up to and including the banning of a protest if there is a reasonable belief that the noise generated by persons taking part it may result in the intimidation or harassment of persons of reasonable firmness…”
So, are you accepting now that a police leader can deny a protest if they feel that the noise will cause such offense to sturdy humans or do you stand by your view that nothing within the legislation permits said leader to deny the protest because of noise?

I stand my assertion that a police officer can't ban a protest because of 'serious noise' as you claimed, because that is the factual position.

You repeatedly omit the additional wording that qualifies and defines police powers in such a manner as to protect the right to protest. I don't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ragingpup

Point 3. You state that the article I linked to was talking about the existing and old public nuisance law. It is not. It is talking about section 59 of the proposed (amended from the old) legislation which now reads (when cutting through the paragraphing) “A person commits a crime if the person does an act which causes serious harm to a person and if [by definition of ‘serious harm’] as a result the person suffers serious annoyance”.
(Yes I’m aware we’re talking about collective offense here – I’ve already clarified in post 337 that the idea of arresting an individual for being ‘seriously annoying’ to an individual was for humorous spin, clearly still beyond you!)
So - are you saying that you have no objection to this new wording being brought in on the grounds that no one prosecuted under the old public nuisance laws? Why do you think the Government have suddenly changed the wording to this then?
(Seeing as that article was so rubbish, David Allen Green goes into more depth dissecting the wording of this paragraph: https://davidallengreen.com/2021/03/...blic-nuisance/
I assume he has got it wrong also?)

The government are acting upon a Law Commission report that suggested that the offence of publc nuisance shoud be made a statutory offence (I note Green's scepticsim about that, which, perhaps, indicates his own bias). The whole point of such an exercise is to replace the centuries of judge made law with a clear exposition of the offence in modern language.

Green is correct when he states that the proposed statutory defintion of public nuisance will extend the offence to acts that put people 'at risk' of the consequences that the offence is intended to address. He is incorrect and makes the same mistake as you when he refers to 'a person' as opposed to 'the public or a section of the public', which is bit unfortunate when he had just set out the wording of the clause itself.

I guess that the person who drafted the public nuisance clause thought it better for the police to be able to act before the public or section of the public suffered the consequences described within it - so not having to wait until the motorway was shut down in the example that I gave.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ragingpup

Sorry to have taken your breath away by accepting the public’s right to protest by making a noise outside my college in response to me bringing in curriculum content that is causing them considerable concern. In fairness, I did point out the absurdity of your scenario.

Again, you miss out qualifying words in order to be able to frame your argument.

You indicated your support of the public's to protest in a manner that would disrupt the abilty to teach within it. That a college adminstrator would put the holding of a disruptive protest above the learning outcomes of students is truly extraordinary.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ragingpup

In summary, I wish I shared your confidence and trust in this government.

I wouldn't trust this government as far as I could throw it, but, as you have pointed out, protests that cause such serious inconvenience, noise and nuisance are relatively rare and so the use of the new powers will also be relatively rare. Having read the relevant clauses, I am content that they are framed in a manner that protects both the rights to protest and of the rights of local communities not to be
caused intimidation or harassment or to suffer serious unease, alarm or distress or disruption as a consequence.
14-04-2021, 12:33 PM
KerrAvon

Quote:

Originally Posted by rolymiller

The biggesr tory who never was! :D

I could not be a Tory under the current leadership. Irrespective of the success of the vaccine roll out, if we ever get an inquiry into the handlng of Covid it will show that tens of thousands of additional deaths were caused as a consequence of repeated poor messaging, inertia and negligence.

If there were a General Election tommorow I would probably take a leaf out of your book and not vote -for the first time in my life. My instinctive home has always been Labour, but they have become a party that puts identity politics over the politics of real life and Gaza and the West Bank over Glasgow and the West Midlands. And they seem to be getting back to what they do best, which is to have a civil war.

We may be getting a handle on Covid, but are a politically unwell country.
14-04-2021, 12:46 PM
crashbang

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grist_To_The_Mill

Jab number 2 on Friday

Proud to be British ( for once)

our lass gets hers Friday in Rotherham.
mine will be 2 or 3 days later. she had a choice where to have it this time.

Show 10 post(s) from this thread on one page