O/T Which jab have you had?

[ragingpup]

Ive have never lectured anyone about posting political stuff on the other board. I said it in jest a few times after Cam made the move.

I was never in favour of moving these topics off the main page and said it at the time. Like you, I think these topics add to the board and increases traffic and interest. If you dont want to read it, move on.

Am I imagining it Wan or did most people favour moving political threads off the boards and Cam acted on that. Memory might be playing tricks on me. My only opposition to political posts being on here was that we were getting overrun by same posters posting the same usually right wing content and made us look like a miserable whiny bunch of old farts and footy 'lads', which I don't think represents the majority of footy fans in Rotherham or elsewhere. But it isn't a deeply held feeling and was quite happy to go with the flow. I remember feeling at the time that the majority of people who moaned about political posts contributed to them themselves and whose actual real problem was the appearence of opposing views.

[great_fire]

Am I imagining it Wan or did most people favour moving political threads off the boards and Cam acted on that. Memory might be playing tricks on me. My only opposition to political posts being on here was that we were getting overrun by same posters posting the same usually right wing content and made us look like a miserable whiny bunch of old farts and footy 'lads', which I don't think represents the majority of footy fans in Rotherham or elsewhere. But it isn't a deeply held feeling and was quite happy to go with the flow. I remember feeling at the time that the majority of people who moaned about political posts contributed to them themselves and whose actual real problem was the appearence of opposing views.

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?

[WanChaiMiller]

So two days ago you were behaving like a 7 year old on this thread, but now want to engage? Fair enough.

Whan Macron referred to the AZ vaccine being being ‘quasi-ineffective’ in the over 65s, and the German goverment gave similar briefings to the German press, I don't think that they had in mind a possible link to blood clots in younger people. Do you?

When Von der Leyden and other EU Commissioners belly ached about AZ's performance on its contract (a matter that they have still not been willing to go to court on, which is telling) are you saying that was all to do with a possible connection with blood clots and that they wanted more because of it?

When Von der Leyden and other EU Commissioners threatened to seize AZ's assets and intellectual property, are you postulating a link with blood clots?

When the Italian Police very publically 'inspected' AZ facilities in that country are you suggesting that it was the possible blood clot squad that were involved?

I stand by my comments on the actions of the EU and some European leaders in relation to the AZ vaccine. Quite apart from treating the company disgracefully, they have managed to destroy European public confidence in its vaccine and are now in a position where they are cajoling AZ into providing supplies that they are struggling to use. It has and will cost tens of thousands of European lives, but, hey, it allows Wan to make a stupid point, so that's ok.

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.

[WanChaiMiller]

Am I imagining it Wan or did most people favour moving political threads off the boards and Cam acted on that. Memory might be playing tricks on me. My only opposition to political posts being on here was that we were getting overrun by same posters posting the same usually right wing content and made us look like a miserable whiny bunch of old farts and footy 'lads', which I don't think represents the majority of footy fans in Rotherham or elsewhere. But it isn't a deeply held feeling and was quite happy to go with the flow. I remember feeling at the time that the majority of people who moaned about political posts contributed to them themselves and whose actual real problem was the appearence of opposing views.

In all seriousness I dont remember a poll.* Although, reading comment on here, people say there was one, so that must be the case.

My memory was to come on the board and find the change.* I assumed Cam had done it off his own bat and was critical of it. I was against the switch.

Since the change Ive not generally got involved in political comments and post much more on football. When I see the usual suspects post, I limit my response to 'you know the rules' as a bit of a joke. After this weekend I will get back to zero comment as I enjoy the board more that way.

You, Roly and me always take the flack for political posts yet rarely start or prompt them. We usually reply to counter right wing ideology. I know I started some threads in response as counter debates.*

I dont understand people who comment then take the hump when they get challenged. I kind of think if you post an opinion be big enough take the counter argument.

[WanChaiMiller]

Well done. Yes the bill would lower the threshold for the police to be able to impose conditions upon demonstrations, just as I explained in my opening post on the subject.

They currently have powers to impose conditions that are exercisable upon the resonable belief of a senior police officer. Do you have examples of goverement pressure being exercised in relation to them? Are you concernd with the current law, whch has been around since 1986?

The idea of government pressure is, I think, rather far fetched. If the organisers of a demonstration disagree with a 'reasonable belief' decision then they can go to the High Court to challenge it (just as Reclaim the Streets did a few weeks ago, albeit in relation to a decision made under different legislation). If that happens, it will be the senior police officer who has to justify his decision, not a politician. Do you think a senior police officer is going to put himself in that firing line for a decsion her is she disagrees with? I don't. And what form of pressure do you have in mind?

How is a British government seeking to put a bill through a democratically elected British parliament anything other than an exercise of sovereignty?

The bill going through the House makes a fundemental change. I can be both ok with how it was and deeply suspisious of the motives behind the change.

Yes of course, it demonstrates our democracy. But, we were told, Brexit was about regaining Sovereignty to extend our freedoms. That was my point. I said many times in the various Brexit debates these Tories will take the support of former Labour voters and use it to whittle away our freedoms as soon as Brexit is done. It aint taken them long to start the process.

I dont think you seriously believe, or are naive enough to think, there is zero scope for Government interference or they will not get involved at any time in the future. My guess is that you're using it stoke your argument.

I'll give you an example.

The Johnson Brexit trade deal has given us a 2 tier country which he promised would not happen. Unionists are rightly angry that Brexit has pushed them to a third state.

It will be interesting to see how the police use these powers in Northern Ireland and to what extent they have scope to break up illegal protest. I think politician will dip in.

A huge Brexit lie that I hope does not result in a serious outcome.

[WanChaiMiller]

I know Police, Crime and Sentencing Bill is a devolved matter. Some parts carry over but not sure if any will apply to NI.

[millertop]

AZ

[KerrAvon]

Kerr you deal with extensive legislation for a living, I'm a former drama student trying to make sense of quite an extensive piece of legislationa and how it might impact on us all. I'm quite happy that I might make mistakes with how I have perceived different parts of the bill or misunderstood terminology applying in different cases. I'm a complete layman, you are not. Therefore, what do you think it makes you look like when you repeatedly try to draw attention to where people misread and claim it as a win? My brother in law, a barrister, is exactly like that in debates too, and even his own family think he's an arse.

Ok, so you trust the Home Secretary not to abuse these powers. No I don't believe that she is thinking of rewriting regs "for every proposed demonstration", but don't trust her or any future home secretary not to abuse this power and don't think such a power should exist. It's my fandamental problem with this bill, aside from the fact that police leaders can deny a protest because they think there will be "serious noise" and can arrest a protester because an arresting officer determined that "a person over there was seriously annoyed".

I guess as probably the most establishment figure on here (yes lets keep doing that thing then), and being pretty much opposed to anything that challenges the centre-right status quo, you would have faith in Patel and trust the government not to abuse these powers. You would see them as reasonable. But pretty much every country had acts of protests from climate activists that were 'disrupive', 'annoying', 'noisy' and I don't read of other countries making fundamental populist law changes pushing through such draconian powers.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on how trustworthy we feel our political leaders are and can be.

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.

[KerrAvon]

It’s nothing to with performing to an audience.

Stop being silly.

Ah, but you don't understand how this works, Howdy.

It's okay for WanChai to introduce the subject of the proposed changes to the legislation on protests and it's okay for raging to then pick up and run with it, but as soon as anyone disagrees with them, they accuse them of showboating and raging is asking for the thread to be moved.

I think the key point that you are missing is that WanChai and raging are of the Left and so have a cloak of moral superiority. As WanChai explains in post 304, it is just him, raging and roly who take brickbats for their views.

Stunning hypocrisy.

[great_fire]

AZ

Alkmaar