Will there be a FOURTH Lockdown?

[Unmoderated]

2 minutes ago, Social Justice League said:

https://www.politics.co.uk/comment/2021/03/16/anti-protest-bill-freedom-dies-in-silence/

aaaaaaaah, you mean this:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/police-crime-sentencing-and-courts-bill-2021-factsheets/police-crime-sentencing-and-courts-bill-2021-protest-powers-factsheet

Updating a 30 plus year old law so that a handful of disruptive loudmouths on some crusade can't ruin things for everyone else?

[sPinwheel]

1 minute ago, Unmoderated said:

aaaaaaaah, you mean this:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/police-crime-sentencing-and-courts-bill-2021-factsheets/police-crime-sentencing-and-courts-bill-2021-protest-powers-factsheet

Updating a 30 plus year old law so that a handful of disruptive loudmouths on some crusade can't ruin things for everyone else?

The law did that already without any need for change.

 

The big difference is important- that the home secretary can arbitrarily decide what is and isn't a legitimate protest. Until now, the government didn't decide this - law enforcement did.

When the right to protest is decided by the government and not unpolitical entities, you are sliding into facism.

[Unmoderated]

4 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

Quite. That makes it very hard right now to argue that any other measures should be used going forward, because doing so is tantamount to saying "we've run out of anything else and this will have to be the norm forevermore," which is unsustainable.

Yes, agreed but of course not everyone is vaccinated as yet and not likely to be fully vaccinated (both jabs) until Autumn. 

In other words there's light at the end of the tunnel. 

[Social Justice League]

5 minutes ago, Unmoderated said:

aaaaaaaah, you mean this:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/police-crime-sentencing-and-courts-bill-2021-factsheets/police-crime-sentencing-and-courts-bill-2021-protest-powers-factsheet

Updating a 30 plus year old law so that a handful of disruptive loudmouths on some crusade can't ruin things for everyone else?

It's just the start.  But halfwits voted for Mr Get Brexit Done Johnson, so they must be happy with how things are panning out so far.  Well done.

[Unmoderated]

Just now, sPinwheel said:

The law did that already without any need for change.

 

The big difference is important- that the home secretary can arbitrarily decide what is and isn't a legitimate protest. Until now, the government didn't decide this - law enforcement did.

When the right to protest is decided by the government and not unpolitical entities, you are sliding into facism.

Disagree and actually this extends the rules already used for a march to cover static protests. 

Hard to say who I'd prefer to determine what is and is not a legitimate protest but the right to protest is not being removed. Instead the police are granted additional support to call time on a protest (good if you live next to it or are impacted) and remove loopholes the troublemakers use to avoid prosecution. 

Ironic isn't it that the kill the bill protests seem to be giving more support to this bill. 

[Unmoderated]

1 minute ago, Social Justice League said:

It's just the start.  But halfwits voted for Mr Get Brexit Done Johnson, so they must be happy with how things are panning out so far.  Well done.

Just the start of what exactly? Extrapolation isn't reliable.

Who would you have put in charge of the country to get Brexit done?

[sPinwheel]

Just now, Unmoderated said:

Disagree and actually this extends the rules already used for a march to cover static protests. 

Hard to say who I'd prefer to determine what is and is not a legitimate protest but the right to protest is not being removed. Instead the police are granted additional support to call time on a protest (good if you live next to it or are impacted) and remove loopholes the troublemakers use to avoid prosecution. 

Ironic isn't it that the kill the bill protests seem to be giving more support to this bill. 

Actually the police have less power to decide. The emphasis of this bill is that the Home Secretary decides who has the right to protest.

 

Recent protests highlight why the government should not be the ones to decide who disagrees with them.

[Social Justice League]

1 minute ago, Unmoderated said:

Just the start of what exactly? Extrapolation isn't reliable.

Who would you have put in charge of the country to get Brexit done?

Feck Brexit.  I wanted it removed completely. 

Boris and the current cabinet own Brexit and the COVID ******up, so I couldn't be happier.

[andrewwk]

30 minutes ago, Social Justice League said:

Feck Brexit.  I wanted it removed completely. 

Boris and the current cabinet own Brexit and the COVID ******up, so I couldn't be happier.

do they? I am quite sure that many scapegoats will be found as and when required.

[Unmoderated]

2 hours ago, sPinwheel said:

Actually the police have less power to decide. The emphasis of this bill is that the Home Secretary decides who has the right to protest.

 

Recent protests highlight why the government should not be the ones to decide who disagrees with them.

I must be missing that part then. The Home Secretary is not going to be the one approving or banning all protests surely? Everyone has the right to protest, what they don't have a right to do is cause a public nuisance which seems to me to be quite reasonable and I should think reasonable to many a peaceful protester. I guess the kids kicking off are the pones there just to kick off anyway?

The government doesn't decide who disagrees with them lol. People decide if they disagree with the government or with the policy. 

It's a shame really this bill is even on the cards but only from a perspective of rights having been abused and rules bent to the limit that this is now tabled don't you think?

[Unmoderated]

2 hours ago, Social Justice League said:

Feck Brexit.  I wanted it removed completely. 

Boris and the current cabinet own Brexit and the COVID ******up, so I couldn't be happier.

That's fine and that's your choice but the people voted and voted in favour so who else would you put in charge?

Brexit, like Covid, is a marathon so let's see how things progress.

[sPinwheel]

27 minutes ago, Unmoderated said:

I must be missing that part then. The Home Secretary is not going to be the one approving or banning all protests surely? 

Yes. And don't call me Shirley. You go on to say right to protest is a right and the rights of those who are affected etc

But ignore this glaring point: The GOVERNMENT with this bill will decide what protest is lawful and what is not. This is the ENTIRE point of this bill.

For the love of God please go READ IT. This is the fundamental basis for all the opposition to it. 

The government has no right to arbitrarily decide who is allowed to disagree with them.

The police already have enough powers to address all you other concerns.

Edited April 7, 2021 by sPinwheel

[Dweller]

 

Former Pfizer Vice-President and Chief Science Officer Dr Mike Yeadon: 
 

JD:  So, tell us what we should be worrying about. I have various family members, and I know that this is a problem around the country, who are thinking, ‘Well, you know, I want to go on holiday. I’d better take one of these vaccines.’ Now, is that a wise move? 

MY:  No, no, absolutely not … even though I have been outside of Big Pharma myself for ten years, all the time I was outside, when I’ve had my own company or was advising other people’s, ultimately the Big Pharma was the buyer.  

So, I’ve been in and around and dependent on that industry all of my professional life. So, I can assure you I’m pro their products. But what I’m not – I’m not pro unsafe products. I’m not pro products used in the wrong people in the wrong way.   

The reason I said no to your question about should people, frankly, for a trivial reason, risk injection with an experimental, new technology vaccine just so they could go on holiday or worse, down to the pub, is one of the most stupid things I’ve heard.  

Unfortunately, I think the Government’s counting on people viewing it as a trivial decision because it’s ‘just a vaccine’.  Well, the materials in question, I think they probably just qualify because they do ultimately raise an immune response. But the way they do it is … is completely different from any vaccine we’ve used before. 

I think to be fair, they should be called gene-based vaccines, just to emphasise there’s something quite different about them. That difference means you cannot take for granted anything about the profile in your body.  

The fact that we’ve got this little word vaccine at the end, that does not mean any of the things you think you understand about vaccines will apply to this one. Not at all.  ......

Those people, I think it’s a wise choice if you want to – it’s a choice, not a requirement – anyone else, please, for goodness sake, take care of your health and don’t be coerced, because what they’re doing to say, ‘Well, you might not be able to travel internationally if you haven’t got a vaccine passport’ or, ‘It’ll be down to the landlords’, says our stupid prime minister.  

 

 

Edited April 7, 2021 by Dweller

[zugzwang]

32 minutes ago, Dweller said:

 

Former Pfizer Vice-President and Chief Science Officer Dr Mike Yeadon: 
 

JD:  So, tell us what we should be worrying about. I have various family members, and I know that this is a problem around the country, who are thinking, ‘Well, you know, I want to go on holiday. I’d better take one of these vaccines.’ Now, is that a wise move? 

MY:  No, no, absolutely not … even though I have been outside of Big Pharma myself for ten years, all the time I was outside, when I’ve had my own company or was advising other people’s, ultimately the Big Pharma was the buyer.  

So, I’ve been in and around and dependent on that industry all of my professional life. So, I can assure you I’m pro their products. But what I’m not – I’m not pro unsafe products. I’m not pro products used in the wrong people in the wrong way.   

The reason I said no to your question about should people, frankly, for a trivial reason, risk injection with an experimental, new technology vaccine just so they could go on holiday or worse, down to the pub, is one of the most stupid things I’ve heard.  

Unfortunately, I think the Government’s counting on people viewing it as a trivial decision because it’s ‘just a vaccine’.  Well, the materials in question, I think they probably just qualify because they do ultimately raise an immune response. But the way they do it is … is completely different from any vaccine we’ve used before. 

I think to be fair, they should be called gene-based vaccines, just to emphasise there’s something quite different about them. That difference means you cannot take for granted anything about the profile in your body.  

The fact that we’ve got this little word vaccine at the end, that does not mean any of the things you think you understand about vaccines will apply to this one. Not at all.  ......

Those people, I think it’s a wise choice if you want to – it’s a choice, not a requirement – anyone else, please, for goodness sake, take care of your health and don’t be coerced, because what they’re doing to say, ‘Well, you might not be able to travel internationally if you haven’t got a vaccine passport’ or, ‘It’ll be down to the landlords’, says our stupid prime minister.  

 

 

 

Berk Yeadon's got an issue with the vaccines now?

Has he given up trying to discredit the PCR test?

[Unmoderated]

1 hour ago, sPinwheel said:

Yes. And don't call me Shirley. You go on to say right to protest is a right and the rights of those who are affected etc

But ignore this glaring point: The GOVERNMENT with this bill will decide what protest is lawful and what is not. This is the ENTIRE point of this bill.

For the love of God please go READ IT. This is the fundamental basis for all the opposition to it. 

The government has no right to arbitrarily decide who is allowed to disagree with them.

The police already have enough powers to address all you other concerns.

This is not correct. Protests are lawful unless they are deemed unlawful, not the other way around. To be silly though the government is the lawmaker and so determines everything that is unlawful and omitted from law. You have it as though the tail wags the dog and the government can just decide that your protest is unlawful. This law is statute and therefore easy to read and comply with should you feel strongly enough about something you want to wave a banner and shout about it. What you can't do is block a road or keep locals awake all night because you feel strongly about something. Again this seems reasonable does it not? If you protest within the law then no issues and you still have that right. 

The government doesn't and can't decide who disagrees with it and it's silly to say otherwise. Anyone can disagree and anyone can protest, they just can't cause a nuisance. If anything this should please lawful protestors since it should enable quickly those that hijack the peaceful protest for their own means of causing a riot for kicks shouldn't it?

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/police-crime-sentencing-and-courts-bill-2021-factsheets/police-crime-sentencing-and-courts-bill-2021-protest-powers-factsheet

The right to protest remains:

Article 10:

Freedom of expression

1Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

2The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

Article 11:

Freedom of assembly and association

1Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

2No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. This Article shall not prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions on the exercise of these rights by members of the armed forces, of the police or of the administration of the State.

Like anything these freedoms come with conditions to balance the individual's rights with those of the community. 

[nightowl]

34 minutes ago, zugzwang said:

 

Berk Yeadon's got an issue with the vaccines now?

Has he given up trying to discredit the PCR test?

Did you read what he said? He has a problem with experimental vaccines just so someone just so they can go to the pub who don't realise that decision isn't as trivial as 'they' make it sound. Ie the risk of the wrong product for the wrong people. Ok you don't like him because he bucks the narrative, but please don't keep implying he said something he didn't (again).

The problems of PCR are well known but wait until lateral flows go mainstream 😒

[sPinwheel]

11 minutes ago, Unmoderated said:

This is not correct. Protests are lawful unless they are deemed unlawful, not the other way around. To be silly though the government is the lawmaker and so determines everything that is unlawful and omitted from law. You have it as though the tail wags the dog and the government can just decide that your protest is unlawful. This law is statute and therefore easy to read and comply with should you feel strongly enough about something you want to wave a banner and shout about it. What you can't do is block a road or keep locals awake all night because you feel strongly about something. Again this seems reasonable does it not? If you protest within the law then no issues and you still have that right. 

The government doesn't and can't decide who disagrees with it and it's silly to say otherwise. Anyone can disagree and anyone can protest, they just can't cause a nuisance. If anything this should please lawful protestors since it should enable quickly those that hijack the peaceful protest for their own means of causing a riot for kicks shouldn't it?

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/police-crime-sentencing-and-courts-bill-2021-factsheets/police-crime-sentencing-and-courts-bill-2021-protest-powers-factsheet

The right to protest remains:

Article 10:

Freedom of expression

1Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

2The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

Article 11:

Freedom of assembly and association

1Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

2No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. This Article shall not prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions on the exercise of these rights by members of the armed forces, of the police or of the administration of the State.

Like anything these freedoms come with conditions to balance the individual's rights with those of the community. 

Lol isn't it funny when authoritorian facists can't decide how far they will let the public protest among themselves. Save me from your pick and choose cherry picking.

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1410487/theresa-may-policing-bill-vote-parliament-sarah-everard-vigil-latest-vn/amp

As much as I hate to admit it, May had the most salient point. It should never be up to the government to decide who is and isn't a legitimate protestor. Because one day, the Home Secretary (Let's say Jacqui Smith III) decides your concerns are illegitimate. Then kisss your ass goodbye, traitor.

This bill is not necessary. Everything is already in place to allow peaceful, legitimate protest.

 

This bill is facist overkill and you know it. Remember, your enemies might be against the wall today, but tomorrow it could be YOU.

Edited April 7, 2021 by sPinwheel

[Dweller]

6 minutes ago, nightowl said:

Did you read what he said? He has a problem with experimental vaccines just so someone just so they can go to the pub who don't realise that decision isn't as trivial as 'they' make it sound. Ie the risk of the wrong product for the wrong people. Ok you don't like him because he bucks the narrative, but please don't keep implying he said something he didn't (again).

The problems of PCR are well known but wait until lateral flows go mainstream 😒

The thing is in the US I believe they are being offered free donuts to get the vaccine. The Uk are thinking about offering free pizza and beer so how far can the government go in trivializing this? But what does it say about THE people risking their health for pizza or donuts when if they go C19 chances are they wouldn't even know! (Provided they are under 50) 

Yeadon said it's "wholly unethical to administer something novel and for which the potential for unwanted effects after a few months is completely uncharacterized....Appreciating that, by entire population, it is also intended that minor children and eventually babies are to be included in the net, and that’s what I interpret to be an evil act". Can anyone really doubt that vaccinating babies and children against something that wont make them very ill is wrong at the very least. As a country do we intend to pump 2 (currently experimental) vaccines a year into babies  for the rest of their lives? 

As Yeadon said: 

it has to be a choice, not a requirement [for the under 60s]  – anyone else, please, for goodness sake, take care of your health and don’t be coerced, because what they’re doing to say, ‘Well, you might not be able to travel internationally if you haven’t got a vaccine passport’ or, ‘It’ll be down to the landlords’, says our stupid prime minister.  

What they’re doing is applying coercive pressure to you. Now, you should know that it is illegal under various international treaties to coerce somebody to receive a medical treatment. It derives from the trials following the defeat of Nazi Germany, where Josef Mengele and other people performed experiments on living humans who, of course, were not volunteers, sometimes killing them.  

And this is a faint echo of that. You must not be put in a position, and our law prohibits it, where you are coercing or mandating someone to take something, certainly that’s an experimental treatment where the outcome is not reasonably certain. And that’s definitely true of these new vaccines.  

They’ve not been around long. No one can tell you what will happen. And so instead of taking the vaccine, just say, ‘How about no,’ just say no. So don’t introduce vaccine passports. They are coercive and illegal. So that’s going to be my response.  

 

 

 

[Unmoderated]

10 minutes ago, sPinwheel said:

Lol isn't it funny when authoritorian facists can't decide how far they will let the public protest among themselves. Save me from your pick and choose cherry picking.

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1410487/theresa-may-policing-bill-vote-parliament-sarah-everard-vigil-latest-vn/amp

 

This bill is not necessary. Everything is already in place to allow peaceful, legitimate protest.

 

This bill is facist overkill and you know it. Remember, your enemies might be against the wall today, but tomorrow it could be YOU.

It's a leap to go from a democratically elected government that can be booted out at the next election to an authoritarian fascist state. For clarity fascism is "dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society and of the economy". UK doesn't have a dictator, the government of the day doesn't suppress the opposition and has pretty much a light influence in the overall running of society and the economy. Best of all, don't like the government you can kick them out. Brilliant. 

You've not provided anything to support your assertion that the government can now decide who can protest and who can't. So why don't you exercise some cherry picking and get those sections from the bill that show this on the statute?

Thanks for the link which is basically a piece saying that the government should be careful of unintended consequences of the bill (like they should of all laws!).

Again, tail wagging dog, the bill is not designed to prevent peaceful legitimate protest, it is there to prevent disruptive behaviour. 

As explained above this bill and the UK is a jolly long way from fascism. Nobody is against the wall lol except those that disrupt the lives of others. 

Extinction rebellion for instance blocking bridges in London. Well done them for raising the issue of climate change (who knew it was a thing before they camped out in The City?) and causing disruption for hundreds of thousands daily.

 

 

[sPinwheel]

8 minutes ago, Unmoderated said:

It's a leap to go from a democratically elected government that can be booted out at the next election to an authoritarian fascist state. For clarity fascism is "dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society and of the economy". UK doesn't have a dictator, the government of the day doesn't suppress the opposition and has pretty much a light influence in the overall running of society and the economy. Best of all, don't like the government you can kick them out. Brilliant. 

You've not provided anything to support your assertion that the government can now decide who can protest and who can't. So why don't you exercise some cherry picking and get those sections from the bill that show this on the statute?

Thanks for the link which is basically a piece saying that the government should be careful of unintended consequences of the bill (like they should of all laws!).

Again, tail wagging dog, the bill is not designed to prevent peaceful legitimate protest, it is there to prevent disruptive behaviour. 

As explained above this bill and the UK is a jolly long way from fascism. Nobody is against the wall lol except those that disrupt the lives of others. 

Extinction rebellion for instance blocking bridges in London. Well done them for raising the issue of climate change (who knew it was a thing before they camped out in The City?) and causing disruption for hundreds of thousands daily.

The police bill, specifically, changes the EXISTING rules such that a government minister can decide what is and isn't a legitimate protest. Previously this was a simple police law and order matter. This is why it is controversial. Something you are oblivious to.

 

This is authoritarianism. Your initial argument is bunk. Democracies can be subverted by such behaviour, in danger of invoking Goodwin's law I remind you both Hitler and Mussolini were voted into power.

Edited April 7, 2021 by sPinwheel

[Pindar]

1 minute ago, Unmoderated said:

It's a leap to go from a democratically elected government that can be booted out at the next election to an authoritarian fascist state. For clarity fascism is "dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society and of the economy".

...

 

Forgive me if I'm wrong but is that not how Hitler became dictator? He won a democratic election and used various acts to transform Germany into a dictatorship, including the use of fear based propaganda and the threat of communism after the burning of the Reichstag, which was blamed on a communist. 

[Former postman]

So is everybody just going to ignore the fact that Boris Johnson just used his new £2.6 million, Russian-built, Trump style briefing room to tell lies about political opponents during a covid 19 briefing?

[sPinwheel]

4 minutes ago, Postman said:

So is everybody just going to ignore the fact that Boris Johnson just used his new £2.6 million, Russian-built, Trump style briefing room to tell lies about political opponents during a covid 19 briefing?

Well, we were quick to ignore the £22billion contract awarded to Dido Harding, (yes BILLION) on a NHS Track and Trace that doesn't work.

£2.6m is a drop in the ocean for these corruptioids...

Edited April 7, 2021 by sPinwheel

[Pindar]

2 minutes ago, sPinwheel said:

Well, we were quick to ignore the £22billion contract awarded to Dido Harding, (yes BILLION) on a NHS Track and Trace that doesn't work.

£2.6m is a drop in the ocean for these corruptioids...

Yeah and that's the publicly stated budget. In reality it will likely double or triple that figure and suck vast sums away from actual healthcare. Corruption knows no bounds. 

[skinnylattej]

5 hours ago, Roman Roady said:

Then the older people stay at home!

S** that, I have had almost 9 out of the last 12 months under what amounts to house arrest. 

I am old, and thus at higher risk of serious illness if I caught C19.  But I'm not going to be a prisoner in my house to be kept safe.  Maybe I would avoid death for longer if I spent my days watching TV, but that's existing.

'There is more to life than the avoidance of death', think it was Sumption.