O/T Which jab have you had?

[ragingpup]

I've posted to support the AZ vaccine and had it myself along with Mrs Pup. However, Mrs P, who works for local charity motitoring health services in our brorough has been contacted this morning by local family who have had a 28 year old man suffering head pains since receiving the AZ vaccine a month ago, and after being told 'it'll pass' by his doctor this morning passed into a coma with family told he will not recover.

As yet, the family have not been told of the cause, or had any confirmation of link with AZ vaccination. However, they feel certain that it is a direct cause of his death and want to push for investigations (which is what Mrs Pup is helping them with).

We're told, and I've been trusting the authorities that such blood clots (if that is what it is) are so rare that we should proceed with the vaccinations, especially older people. But this is uncomfortably close to home and whilst not jumping to immediate conclusions and siding with the conspiracists, this does make me a bit more wary. Not sure what to make of it.

[great_fire]

If Covid deaths are any death within 28 days of a positive Covid test then surely vaccine deaths should be any deaths within 28 days of taking the vaccine?

It's all very one-sided.

There are numerous articles about how low the chance is of getting a blood clot after having a vaccine but no articles about how low the chance of dying of Covid is for a healthy person under 50.

[gm_gm]

Pup it’s a strange response...”the EU could have done the same as the UK if they wanted”.....so their master plan was to vaccinate the least amount of people possible, why?

[Grist_To_The_Mill]

This site can be hilarious at times

Logic just goes out of the window

[ragingpup]

Pup it’s a strange response...”the EU could have done the same as the UK if they wanted”.....so their master plan was to vaccinate the least amount of people possible, why?

I didn't say the EU could have done the same if they wanted did I? I said that any of the EU member states could have done the same as the UK had done if they had opted out of the EU procurement plan for vaccines. So the UK could have remained in the EU, opted not to enter into the plan and done exactly as we (thankfully, as long as the vaccines don't kill us!) have done so. That's completely different to saying that the EU could have done the same as the UK. Pay attention!

[crashbang]

The UK had an emergency path to vaccinate.
The EU didn't.

[KerrAvon]

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.

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.

[millertop]

OVER 45’s invited to get jab now

Probably doesn’t apply to posters on here

[clarkey1974]

Moderna jab been rolled out at Sheffield arena...

That’s a vaccine not a pop group.!.

[howdydoo]

OVER 45’s invited to get jab now

Probably doesn’t apply to posters on here

It applies to 94.7% of posters on here