O/T Which jab have you had?

[WanChaiMiller]

I remember as kids, no seat belts and when we went around corners skating about in the back of a Vauxhall Viva on vinyl seats like Torvill and Dean. Not sure if that was worse or when Mum and Dad both lit up their Embassy Regal and the only respite we had was to stick our nose out of the small rear quarter light windows.

As kids if we were in the front seat our parents would put an arm across you as they braked.

[howdydoo]

But it’s easier to make it disappear from sight by moving it.

Move it please

Can we just close this thread and have done with it? Or maybe just restrict people to answer: Astra Zeneca, Pfizer or not had it yet.

Just let us know what suits the MM police who seem so preoccupied with reading and complaining about content, rather than simply ignoring it. Weird.

Moderate by all means but it’s clear people want to exchange views. As long as you don’t end up with the odd village idiot, answering their own posts, what’s the issue?

There really isn’t one.

[great_fire]

Yep, believe it or not there were folks then claiming the wearing of seat belts was dangerous.

Just like the anti-jab lobby we are seeing now

Totally thick

So people under 30 are thick for taking a new type of vaccine that hasn't been fully tested in order to avoid a 0.2% chance of dying from Covid-19, yeah right.

I bet you watch BBC News three times a day don't you?

[Grist_To_The_Mill]

So people under 30 are thick for taking a new type of vaccine that hasn't been fully tested in order to avoid a 0.2% chance of dying from Covid-19, yeah right.

I bet you watch BBC News three times a day don't you?

The Darwin Awards won’t be short of candidates this year, that’s for sure.

[great_fire]

The Darwin Awards won’t be short of candidates this year, that’s for sure.

Well I agree with that.

[WanChaiMiller]

As this thread has gone off topic I've set up a thread on the policing bill on the 'politics board' for any further replies on this topic. It's an interesting topic and am happy to discuss the ins and outs but agree with earlier poster that it's way off topic for this thread, and should be over there anyway.

Kerr wont post on there. Its like that 'if a tree falls in the woods' question.

"If Kerr writes an essay published on the political board and no one reads it, has he still demonstrated his intellectual superiority over the rest of us?"

[the_idiotb_stardson]

I love how this issue has exposed how bogus the corporate sponsored BLM was.


So white liberals take a knee and talk about and talk about the shame and guilt of being an oppressor. and their white privilege etc.

Out comes the covid-vax and ethnic minority groups are quite rightly very suspicious. Next minute all the white-liberals are urging them to have the vax.


Can they see the hypocrisy in their "whitey still knows best attitude" ?

[Stovicmiller]

Had my jab a couple of weeks ago and daughter had her second jab yesterday. Both of us felt fine .

[Stovicmiller]

The az version.

[KerrAvon]

Grist would not be able to protest about Brexit if the Home decrees that his protest will be likely to cause serious unease to people in it's vicinity?

You make much of my omission of the word serious. How will 'serious' unease/annoyance as opposed to just 'unease' or 'annoyance' be defined and who will be defining it? Are you happy with this wording?

I thought you disliked straw manning? I didn't say I approved of serious disruption to people going about their activities, and I completely agree that there is a balance to be struck. But are you not concerned that these sections of the bill are open to abuse by an open secretary that wishes to further clamp down on active but legitimate protest? (I'm not talking about riots or criminal acts)

The decision on Grist's protest would be made by a 'senior police officer' (to save you asking me, look up what that means in section 12(2) of the Public Order Act 1986). Under the current legislation, if he or she reasonably believed that it would result in "serious public disorder", "serious damage to property" or "serious disruption to the life of the community" or was intended to intimdiate then they could impose conditions up to and including prohibiting it from taking place.

Under the proposed legislation the power to impose conditions or prohibit would be extended to situations where there was a reasonable belief that the proposed demonstration would be noisy enough to cause “intimidation or harassment” or “serious unease, alarm or distress”.

I took issue with your ommision of the word 'serious' because doing so compleletely misrepresents the bill. That seems quite important to me, but each to their own, I suppose.

'Serious' is an ordinary English word meaning 'severe in effect' in the first online dictionary that I pulled up. I am happy with the use of that word as it prevents intereference with demonstrations that eare unlikely to have a serious effect. What wording would you like?

You will note from my first paragraph that the expressions 'reasonable belief' and 'serious' are in use in the current legislation that has been around since 1986. Do you have any issues with how they have been interpreted? Any evidence that people don't understand the word 'serious'?

So you don't approve of serious disruption to people going about their activities, but simultaneoulsy oppose a bill that will make it easier for the police to prevent that from happening?? Cool. What are you going to do when the EDL turn up outside your college with their rock concert standard sound system? Appeal to their good nature?