Is anyone getting caught by Mayor Sadiq's latest ULEZ wheeze?
£12.50 per day for commuting from Wood Green, Walthamstow, Chiswick or Kew out of London if you have the wrong car. £3k a year for all the working days.
Hmmm.
The other interesting one is that afaik he has not yet restored the 90% discount on the CC for residents of the CC zone. That's an extra £13.50 a day for anyone living in most of Zone 1 and part of Zone 2 every time they use a car.
Electorally relevant? Who may this hurt?
Do those of you living there notice this?
Yes!
He’s also refused to roll back the weekend charge as he promised in the election.
It costs us £20 each time we drive
Get an ebike
Not taking my kid cycling across central London
For the next 4 years you can get an e-car.
Indeed an extra car is one of Sadiq's Solutions on his website.
I'd expect cycling in London to continue to improve, though there are not enough segregated routes yet.
The first time I did it I forgot to unclip myself from my pedals at the traffic lights in Trafalgar Square.
I have an e-cargo bike, which is fantastic, and I have sometimes taken 4 (small) children in it. I use it for at least 15km every day, it's generally quicker and a lot more fun than a car getting around the city. The cars give me more respect too. It's pretty flat around here, and the bike lanes are ok-ish, so might not work quite as well in London...
Is anyone getting caught by Mayor Sadiq's latest ULEZ wheeze?
£12.50 per day for commuting from Wood Green, Walthamstow, Chiswick or Kew out of London if you have the wrong car. £3k a year for all the working days.
Hmmm.
The other interesting one is that afaik he has not yet restored the 90% discount on the CC for residents of the CC zone. That's an extra £13.50 a day for anyone living in most of Zone 1 and part of Zone 2 every time they use a car.
Electorally relevant? Who may this hurt?
Do those of you living there notice this?
Yes!
He’s also refused to roll back the weekend charge as he promised in the election.
It costs us £20 each time we drive
Checking I see that people registered for CC pre-July 2020 have their discount grandfathered in. Shouldn't this be you, or do you live in the 'burbs eg Zone 2 ?
I’m in the burbs
How can it cost you £20 each time you drive if you don't live in the CC zone? I live in zone 2 and in the ten years I've lived here I've never paid the CC, for the simple reason that I never drive into Central London. Get the bus!
The primary driving we do is to the Tower. Most other places we walk.
Are you a Beefeater? The Tower of London isn't exactly hard to reach by tube or bus. AIUI the congestion charge is specifically designed to discourage people from taking unnecessary car journeys, and so it sounds like your inconvenience is a feature not a bug. It simply wouldn't occur to me to drive into the CC zone from my home in zone 2.
To be fair, if you are not on the "right" tube lines for your destination, travel across London can be a pain.
For example, commuting into Paddington station.....
Ha ha I live in South East London so you don't need to tell me about the deficiencies of the tube network.
Is anyone getting caught by Mayor Sadiq's latest ULEZ wheeze?
£12.50 per day for commuting from Wood Green, Walthamstow, Chiswick or Kew out of London if you have the wrong car. £3k a year for all the working days.
Hmmm.
The other interesting one is that afaik he has not yet restored the 90% discount on the CC for residents of the CC zone. That's an extra £13.50 a day for anyone living in most of Zone 1 and part of Zone 2 every time they use a car.
Electorally relevant? Who may this hurt?
Do those of you living there notice this?
Yes!
He’s also refused to roll back the weekend charge as he promised in the election.
It costs us £20 each time we drive
Checking I see that people registered for CC pre-July 2020 have their discount grandfathered in. Shouldn't this be you, or do you live in the 'burbs eg Zone 2 ?
I’m in the burbs
How can it cost you £20 each time you drive if you don't live in the CC zone? I live in zone 2 and in the ten years I've lived here I've never paid the CC, for the simple reason that I never drive into Central London. Get the bus!
The primary driving we do is to the Tower. Most other places we walk.
Are you a Beefeater? The Tower of London isn't exactly hard to reach by tube or bus. AIUI the congestion charge is specifically designed to discourage people from taking unnecessary car journeys, and so it sounds like your inconvenience is a feature not a bug. It simply wouldn't occur to me to drive into the CC zone from my home in zone 2.
To be fair, if you are not on the "right" tube lines for your destination, travel across London can be a pain.
For example, commuting into Paddington station.....
And driving in London is always an absolute pleasure with no pain whatsoever......
UK is paying for its governments not introducing proper Covid passports, I think. Potential benefits are (1) driving higher vaccination rates (2) keeping a proportion of infected people out of venues where the disease can easily be passed on (3) enforcing proper tracing if there is an outbreak (4) allowing venues to stay open if further restrictions are required.
Although not directly comparable, I note according to Our World in Data that hospital admissions are running about five times higher in the UK than France, Germany and Italy.
The UK is benefiting from the importance that its government puts on liberty
I am struggling to see any downsides of Covid passports to put against the four advantages I set out. The liberty argument doesn't work in my view. Surely the freedom not to be infected, get very ill and be treated for any disease, not just Covid, by a functioning healthcare system, trumps the freedom not to comply with a piece of bureaucracy.
You haven't spelled out what displacing infections into tomorrow gets us, other than possible higher severity. You keep banging on about the NHS collapsing but it isn't. Even they say it isn't, they're saying it could if the situation gets worse. It isn't getting worse, we've got no NPIs and this is as bad as it gets and every 1000 people who get infected today are ~950 who won't get infected in the future.
And I am one of those who has now become infected.
Tested positive. Double jabbed.
I have been banging on for so long about how for double jabbed people Covid is just like the flu that it is about time I was able to put my money where my mouth is.
Day 2 update: it's just like the flu.
Indeed, but plus the metallic taste in the mouth, which I don't recall having before.
Maybe, but who give a shit what Carrie Johnson thinks.
Well I don't either, but it is a statement of what Gove said and clearly what he said was either a deliberate lie or he is an idiot. I took it he was deliberately misleading and I prefer that it is that than he is an idiot.
Don't you think such clear misrepresentations should be challenged?
I don't giveca fuck what any political says. They are all liars. amazing how few people see this.amd expecially whoever happens to be the opposition. Opposition is to oppose even it its wrong.this
I am not sure whether you were drinking when you wrote that post. but I will attempt a reply.
All people lie sometimes, in that politicians (is that what you mean by a "political"?) are people, they may be no worse than other types of people. Some politicians, like some people generally, are almost certainly pathological liars. I would consider Boris Johnson such which IS a problem, and is a problem because it enables and emboldens people who have your puerile perspective that "all politicals" are the same. They are not. The majority in most parties (and I have met quite a few) are decent people who are trying to make a difference. In that sense they need our support and respect, unless they give us serious reason not to.
UK is paying for its governments not introducing proper Covid passports, I think. Potential benefits are (1) driving higher vaccination rates (2) keeping a proportion of infected people out of venues where the disease can easily be passed on (3) enforcing proper tracing if there is an outbreak (4) allowing venues to stay open if further restrictions are required.
Although not directly comparable, I note according to Our World in Data that hospital admissions are running about five times higher in the UK than France, Germany and Italy.
The UK is benefiting from the importance that its government puts on liberty
I'm struggling to think how this takes away your liberty. You don't need to show your passport, but if you don't you can't come in. It is your liberty to choose. I also don't have the liberty to drive on the right side of the road. Do you think I should have the liberty to do so without consequences. You are not allowed to because of the harm you may do to others.
You are not being prevented from driving to A to B.
You are being prevented from participating in normal life.
Nobody is being prevented from participating in normal life.
They're just being asked to show their vaccine ID, which is bad enough and I oppose it on that ground, but lets not get carried away.
Under the proposal, If you are no vaccinated then you can’t go to restaurants, venues, museums etc. You are excluded from society because the government has insisted that you take a medical treatment
Then get vaccinated and you cease to be excluded.
We've all been excluded from society in the recent past. If there needs to be restrictions as a minority who've refused vaccines are overwhelming the NHS then those causing the problem are the only ones who should be excluded, nobody else.
Better to not require vaccine passports. But if they are required, then locking down the unvaccinated is infinitely better than locking down everybody.
The government insisting you take a personal medical treatment is not something I am comfortable with. It up ends the power relationship between the state and the citizen
I am instinctively liberal, but emergency powers are sometimes necessary. So long as they have a sunset clause, I think vaccine passports for people to access non essential services are definitely what should be introduced.
UK is paying for its governments not introducing proper Covid passports, I think. Potential benefits are (1) driving higher vaccination rates (2) keeping a proportion of infected people out of venues where the disease can easily be passed on (3) enforcing proper tracing if there is an outbreak (4) allowing venues to stay open if further restrictions are required.
Although not directly comparable, I note according to Our World in Data that hospital admissions are running about five times higher in the UK than France, Germany and Italy.
The UK is benefiting from the importance that its government puts on liberty
I'm struggling to think how this takes away your liberty. You don't need to show your passport, but if you don't you can't come in. It is your liberty to choose. I also don't have the liberty to drive on the right side of the road. Do you think I should have the liberty to do so without consequences. You are not allowed to because of the harm you may do to others.
You are not being prevented from driving to A to B.
You are being prevented from participating in normal life.
Nobody is being prevented from participating in normal life.
They're just being asked to show their vaccine ID, which is bad enough and I oppose it on that ground, but lets not get carried away.
Under the proposal, If you are no vaccinated then you can’t go to restaurants, venues, museums etc. You are excluded from society because the government has insisted that you take a medical treatment
If its still the NHS pass we are talking about, we can take a free LFT test. No medical treatment is required whatsoever, although vaccination does save time, and also saves lives.
Against it being mandatory but a lot of venues are already using it and it is fine.
Looking at definitions of "medical treatment," LFTs arguably fall under it.
" “Medical treatment” means all procedures for diagnosing, or treating any physical or mental illness, infirmity or defect"
(From HMRC's Employment Income Manual)
Actually, seeing that vaccinations are preventative rather than treatment, it could even be argued by a lawyer that LFTs are "medical treatment" whilst vaccinations are not.
UK is paying for its governments not introducing proper Covid passports, I think. Potential benefits are (1) driving higher vaccination rates (2) keeping a proportion of infected people out of venues where the disease can easily be passed on (3) enforcing proper tracing if there is an outbreak (4) allowing venues to stay open if further restrictions are required.
Although not directly comparable, I note according to Our World in Data that hospital admissions are running about five times higher in the UK than France, Germany and Italy.
The UK is benefiting from the importance that its government puts on liberty
I'm struggling to think how this takes away your liberty. You don't need to show your passport, but if you don't you can't come in. It is your liberty to choose. I also don't have the liberty to drive on the right side of the road. Do you think I should have the liberty to do so without consequences. You are not allowed to because of the harm you may do to others.
You are not being prevented from driving to A to B.
You are being prevented from participating in normal life.
Nobody is being prevented from participating in normal life.
They're just being asked to show their vaccine ID, which is bad enough and I oppose it on that ground, but lets not get carried away.
Under the proposal, If you are no vaccinated then you can’t go to restaurants, venues, museums etc. You are excluded from society because the government has insisted that you take a medical treatment
Then get vaccinated and you cease to be excluded.
We've all been excluded from society in the recent past. If there needs to be restrictions as a minority who've refused vaccines are overwhelming the NHS then those causing the problem are the only ones who should be excluded, nobody else.
Better to not require vaccine passports. But if they are required, then locking down the unvaccinated is infinitely better than locking down everybody.
The government insisting you take a personal medical treatment is not something I am comfortable with. It up ends the power relationship between the state and the citizen
I completely agree with that.
But the government insisting you stay at home, schools are closed, businesses are closed etc is something I am not comfortable with either.
If the choice is Vaxxports or No Restrictions then I choose No Restrictions. If the choice is Vaxxports or Lockdown then I choose Vaxxports.
Anyone who wishes to remain at home instead of having the vaccine has the right to do that, and is no worse off than if we had a lockdown.
It's a good example of the crap you post if nothing else ....
How? That tweet by Carrie Johnson and Gove's comment were utter nonsense. The EU did not stop us having higher standards. In fact the UK did have a tendency to gold plate EU regulations and then blame the EU for them.
The EU prevented us from failing below minimum standards, it did not prevent us from exceeding them so Gove was being entirely irrational (I suspect intentionally so for those to stupid to realise it).
That such a transparently obvious truth needs explaining shows why Brexit discussions are futile. People believe what they want to believe.
Carrie’s tweet wasn’t utter nonsense. Meaningless and with no predictive value, but accurate.
Leaving doesn’t mean we WILL do x In fact we CAN do y
Yes very clever. Accurate but dancing on a pin head I feel.
Now using your phrasing how about this:
It does however mean we CAN do x (which we shouldn't) And we COULD ALWAYS do y but by say we CAN NOW (as Gove said) rather than just saying we CAN (as you post) implies that we COULDN'T before (which is a lie)
“Can now” doesn’t IMPLY “couldn’t before”. You are INFERRING that.
Is anyone getting caught by Mayor Sadiq's latest ULEZ wheeze?
£12.50 per day for commuting from Wood Green, Walthamstow, Chiswick or Kew out of London if you have the wrong car. £3k a year for all the working days.
Hmmm.
The other interesting one is that afaik he has not yet restored the 90% discount on the CC for residents of the CC zone. That's an extra £13.50 a day for anyone living in most of Zone 1 and part of Zone 2 every time they use a car.
Electorally relevant? Who may this hurt?
Do those of you living there notice this?
Yes!
He’s also refused to roll back the weekend charge as he promised in the election.
It costs us £20 each time we drive
Get an ebike
Not taking my kid cycling across central London
For the next 4 years you can get an e-car.
Indeed an extra car is one of Sadiq's Solutions on his website.
I'd expect cycling in London to continue to improve, though there are not enough segregated routes yet.
The first time I did it I forgot to unclip myself from my pedals at the traffic lights in Trafalgar Square.
Hmm, I got taken out at traffic lights in Trafalgar Square by someone next to me who forgot to unclip. Was it you?
This is three or four years back - I was on a Sadiq cycle so not clipped in. Didn't actually go right over, myself, happily.
Is anyone getting caught by Mayor Sadiq's latest ULEZ wheeze?
£12.50 per day for commuting from Wood Green, Walthamstow, Chiswick or Kew out of London if you have the wrong car. £3k a year for all the working days.
Hmmm.
The other interesting one is that afaik he has not yet restored the 90% discount on the CC for residents of the CC zone. That's an extra £13.50 a day for anyone living in most of Zone 1 and part of Zone 2 every time they use a car.
Electorally relevant? Who may this hurt?
Do those of you living there notice this?
Yes!
He’s also refused to roll back the weekend charge as he promised in the election.
It costs us £20 each time we drive
Checking I see that people registered for CC pre-July 2020 have their discount grandfathered in. Shouldn't this be you, or do you live in the 'burbs eg Zone 2 ?
I’m in the burbs
How can it cost you £20 each time you drive if you don't live in the CC zone? I live in zone 2 and in the ten years I've lived here I've never paid the CC, for the simple reason that I never drive into Central London. Get the bus!
The primary driving we do is to the Tower. Most other places we walk.
Are you a Beefeater? The Tower of London isn't exactly hard to reach by tube or bus. AIUI the congestion charge is specifically designed to discourage people from taking unnecessary car journeys, and so it sounds like your inconvenience is a feature not a bug. It simply wouldn't occur to me to drive into the CC zone from my home in zone 2.
To be fair, if you are not on the "right" tube lines for your destination, travel across London can be a pain.
For example, commuting into Paddington station.....
And driving in London is always an absolute pleasure with no pain whatsoever......
If you drive out of rush hour, it can be surprisingly easy to get around.
It's a good example of the crap you post if nothing else ....
How? That tweet by Carrie Johnson and Gove's comment were utter nonsense. The EU did not stop us having higher standards. In fact the UK did have a tendency to gold plate EU regulations and then blame the EU for them.
The EU prevented us from failing below minimum standards, it did not prevent us from exceeding them so Gove was being entirely irrational (I suspect intentionally so for those to stupid to realise it).
That such a transparently obvious truth needs explaining shows why Brexit discussions are futile. People believe what they want to believe.
Carrie’s tweet wasn’t utter nonsense. Meaningless and with no predictive value, but accurate.
Leaving doesn’t mean we WILL do x In fact we CAN do y
Yes very clever. Accurate but dancing on a pin head I feel.
Now using your phrasing how about this:
It does however mean we CAN do x (which we shouldn't) And we COULD ALWAYS do y but by say we CAN NOW (as Gove said) rather than just saying we CAN (as you post) implies that we COULDN'T before (which is a lie)
“Can now” doesn’t IMPLY “couldn’t before”. You are INFERRING that.
Is anyone getting caught by Mayor Sadiq's latest ULEZ wheeze?
£12.50 per day for commuting from Wood Green, Walthamstow, Chiswick or Kew out of London if you have the wrong car. £3k a year for all the working days.
Hmmm.
The other interesting one is that afaik he has not yet restored the 90% discount on the CC for residents of the CC zone. That's an extra £13.50 a day for anyone living in most of Zone 1 and part of Zone 2 every time they use a car.
Electorally relevant? Who may this hurt?
Do those of you living there notice this?
Yes!
He’s also refused to roll back the weekend charge as he promised in the election.
It costs us £20 each time we drive
Get an ebike
Not taking my kid cycling across central London
For the next 4 years you can get an e-car.
Indeed an extra car is one of Sadiq's Solutions on his website.
I'd expect cycling in London to continue to improve, though there are not enough segregated routes yet.
The first time I did it I forgot to unclip myself from my pedals at the traffic lights in Trafalgar Square.
Hmm, I got taken out at traffic lights in Trafalgar Square by someone next to me who forgot to unclip. Was it you?
This is three or four years back - I was on a Sadiq cycle so not clipped in. Didn't actually go right over, myself, happily.
No.
The only thing I landed on was the pavement.
Ah. I'll let you off then
And aplogies that I wasn't there to break your fall
UK is paying for its governments not introducing proper Covid passports, I think. Potential benefits are (1) driving higher vaccination rates (2) keeping a proportion of infected people out of venues where the disease can easily be passed on (3) enforcing proper tracing if there is an outbreak (4) allowing venues to stay open if further restrictions are required.
Although not directly comparable, I note according to Our World in Data that hospital admissions are running about five times higher in the UK than France, Germany and Italy.
The UK is benefiting from the importance that its government puts on liberty
I'm struggling to think how this takes away your liberty. You don't need to show your passport, but if you don't you can't come in. It is your liberty to choose. I also don't have the liberty to drive on the right side of the road. Do you think I should have the liberty to do so without consequences. You are not allowed to because of the harm you may do to others.
You are not being prevented from driving to A to B.
You are being prevented from participating in normal life.
Nobody is being prevented from participating in normal life.
They're just being asked to show their vaccine ID, which is bad enough and I oppose it on that ground, but lets not get carried away.
Under the proposal, If you are no vaccinated then you can’t go to restaurants, venues, museums etc. You are excluded from society because the government has insisted that you take a medical treatment
Then get vaccinated and you cease to be excluded.
We've all been excluded from society in the recent past. If there needs to be restrictions as a minority who've refused vaccines are overwhelming the NHS then those causing the problem are the only ones who should be excluded, nobody else.
Better to not require vaccine passports. But if they are required, then locking down the unvaccinated is infinitely better than locking down everybody.
The government insisting you take a personal medical treatment is not something I am comfortable with. It up ends the power relationship between the state and the citizen
Its not insisting that you take the treatment, but it is making it harder for you to have fun etc if you don't...
And the state shouldn’t have that right (as opposed to having the power, which it clearly does, subject to parliamentary approval).
That’s the issue. Government is (indirectly) elected by the people and its authority is derived from the people.
The ability to exclude from society (prison or exile) is the ultimate sanction the state can apply and only for a breach of the criminal law.
Extending that to include “not doing something I think you should do” is a massive extension of state power
Is anyone getting caught by Mayor Sadiq's latest ULEZ wheeze?
£12.50 per day for commuting from Wood Green, Walthamstow, Chiswick or Kew out of London if you have the wrong car. £3k a year for all the working days.
Hmmm.
The other interesting one is that afaik he has not yet restored the 90% discount on the CC for residents of the CC zone. That's an extra £13.50 a day for anyone living in most of Zone 1 and part of Zone 2 every time they use a car.
Electorally relevant? Who may this hurt?
Do those of you living there notice this?
Yes!
He’s also refused to roll back the weekend charge as he promised in the election.
It costs us £20 each time we drive
Get an ebike
Not taking my kid cycling across central London
For the next 4 years you can get an e-car.
Indeed an extra car is one of Sadiq's Solutions on his website.
I'd expect cycling in London to continue to improve, though there are not enough segregated routes yet.
The first time I did it I forgot to unclip myself from my pedals at the traffic lights in Trafalgar Square.
I have an e-cargo bike, which is fantastic, and I have sometimes taken 4 (small) children in it. I use it for at least 15km every day, it's generally quicker and a lot more fun than a car getting around the city. The cars give me more respect too. It's pretty flat around here, and the bike lanes are ok-ish, so might not work quite as well in London...
UK is paying for its governments not introducing proper Covid passports, I think. Potential benefits are (1) driving higher vaccination rates (2) keeping a proportion of infected people out of venues where the disease can easily be passed on (3) enforcing proper tracing if there is an outbreak (4) allowing venues to stay open if further restrictions are required.
Although not directly comparable, I note according to Our World in Data that hospital admissions are running about five times higher in the UK than France, Germany and Italy.
The UK is benefiting from the importance that its government puts on liberty
I'm struggling to think how this takes away your liberty. You don't need to show your passport, but if you don't you can't come in. It is your liberty to choose. I also don't have the liberty to drive on the right side of the road. Do you think I should have the liberty to do so without consequences. You are not allowed to because of the harm you may do to others.
You are not being prevented from driving to A to B.
You are being prevented from participating in normal life.
Nobody is being prevented from participating in normal life.
They're just being asked to show their vaccine ID, which is bad enough and I oppose it on that ground, but lets not get carried away.
Under the proposal, If you are no vaccinated then you can’t go to restaurants, venues, museums etc. You are excluded from society because the government has insisted that you take a medical treatment
If its still the NHS pass we are talking about, we can take a free LFT test. No medical treatment is required whatsoever, although vaccination does save time, and also saves lives.
Against it being mandatory but a lot of venues are already using it and it is fine.
Looking at definitions of "medical treatment," LFTs arguably fall under it.
" “Medical treatment” means all procedures for diagnosing, or treating any physical or mental illness, infirmity or defect"
(From HMRC's Employment Income Manual)
Actually, seeing that vaccinations are preventative rather than treatment, it could even be argued by a lawyer that LFTs are "medical treatment" whilst vaccinations are not.
OK, whatever the legal definitions, someone taking an LFT test, if they want to go to a major event or nightclub is not a big civil liberties restriction. Indeed the biggest regular events, PL football, already use the NHS pass as do many nightclubs and events. Some go further and demand a recent test regardless of vaccination, or even both test and vaccination. I must have used the NHS app for this purpose at least ten times and it takes about 10-15 seconds to process at most venues.
So whilst I am against the policy, it really is not a substantial change to the current situation or a burden on people. The bigger impact might be on businesses, some of which are surviving at the margins at the moment and hoping to get through to better times.
If it were expanded to pubs and restaurants that would be a bigger hit, and I would be even more against that, but other countries are coping with it and not turning into North Korea.
Mr. Foremain, I fear that's complacent. Once we have the beginnings of ID cards or social credit, they'll be here to stay, for authoritarian reasons claiming to be for our own good.
It's a good example of the crap you post if nothing else ....
How? That tweet by Carrie Johnson and Gove's comment were utter nonsense. The EU did not stop us having higher standards. In fact the UK did have a tendency to gold plate EU regulations and then blame the EU for them.
The EU prevented us from failing below minimum standards, it did not prevent us from exceeding them so Gove was being entirely irrational (I suspect intentionally so for those to stupid to realise it).
That such a transparently obvious truth needs explaining shows why Brexit discussions are futile. People believe what they want to believe.
Carrie’s tweet wasn’t utter nonsense. Meaningless and with no predictive value, but accurate.
Leaving doesn’t mean we WILL do x In fact we CAN do y
Yes very clever. Accurate but dancing on a pin head I feel.
Now using your phrasing how about this:
It does however mean we CAN do x (which we shouldn't) And we COULD ALWAYS do y but by say we CAN NOW (as Gove said) rather than just saying we CAN (as you post) implies that we COULDN'T before (which is a lie)
“Can now” doesn’t IMPLY “couldn’t before”. You are INFERRING that.
But it’s all dancing
Strongly disagree. The presence of the word "now" modifies the sentence, and its insertion implies a difference compared to another time. Implication is understood with reference to the word choices made by the speaker. The choice to use "now" signifies something of the mental state of the speaker. What could "now" be doing there OTHER THAN implying a change?
Of course, this is understood by everyone who isn't trying to dishonestly defend a dishonest implication.
UK is paying for its governments not introducing proper Covid passports, I think. Potential benefits are (1) driving higher vaccination rates (2) keeping a proportion of infected people out of venues where the disease can easily be passed on (3) enforcing proper tracing if there is an outbreak (4) allowing venues to stay open if further restrictions are required.
Although not directly comparable, I note according to Our World in Data that hospital admissions are running about five times higher in the UK than France, Germany and Italy.
The UK is benefiting from the importance that its government puts on liberty
I'm struggling to think how this takes away your liberty. You don't need to show your passport, but if you don't you can't come in. It is your liberty to choose. I also don't have the liberty to drive on the right side of the road. Do you think I should have the liberty to do so without consequences. You are not allowed to because of the harm you may do to others.
You are not being prevented from driving to A to B.
You are being prevented from participating in normal life.
Nobody is being prevented from participating in normal life.
They're just being asked to show their vaccine ID, which is bad enough and I oppose it on that ground, but lets not get carried away.
Under the proposal, If you are no vaccinated then you can’t go to restaurants, venues, museums etc. You are excluded from society because the government has insisted that you take a medical treatment
Then get vaccinated and you cease to be excluded.
We've all been excluded from society in the recent past. If there needs to be restrictions as a minority who've refused vaccines are overwhelming the NHS then those causing the problem are the only ones who should be excluded, nobody else.
Better to not require vaccine passports. But if they are required, then locking down the unvaccinated is infinitely better than locking down everybody.
The government insisting you take a personal medical treatment is not something I am comfortable with. It up ends the power relationship between the state and the citizen
Its not insisting that you take the treatment, but it is making it harder for you to have fun etc if you don't...
And the state shouldn’t have that right (as opposed to having the power, which it clearly does, subject to parliamentary approval).
That’s the issue. Government is (indirectly) elected by the people and its authority is derived from the people.
The ability to exclude from society (prison or exile) is the ultimate sanction the state can apply and only for a breach of the criminal law.
Extending that to include “not doing something I think you should do” is a massive extension of state power
Shamima Begum (exiled by the Home Secretary after no court of law has adjudicated on any breach of the criminal law) says hi. Governments do this kind of thing all the time (I am not saying they should).
UK is paying for its governments not introducing proper Covid passports, I think. Potential benefits are (1) driving higher vaccination rates (2) keeping a proportion of infected people out of venues where the disease can easily be passed on (3) enforcing proper tracing if there is an outbreak (4) allowing venues to stay open if further restrictions are required.
Although not directly comparable, I note according to Our World in Data that hospital admissions are running about five times higher in the UK than France, Germany and Italy.
The UK is benefiting from the importance that its government puts on liberty
I'm struggling to think how this takes away your liberty. You don't need to show your passport, but if you don't you can't come in. It is your liberty to choose. I also don't have the liberty to drive on the right side of the road. Do you think I should have the liberty to do so without consequences. You are not allowed to because of the harm you may do to others.
You are not being prevented from driving to A to B.
You are being prevented from participating in normal life.
Nobody is being prevented from participating in normal life.
They're just being asked to show their vaccine ID, which is bad enough and I oppose it on that ground, but lets not get carried away.
Under the proposal, If you are no vaccinated then you can’t go to restaurants, venues, museums etc. You are excluded from society because the government has insisted that you take a medical treatment
Then get vaccinated and you cease to be excluded.
We've all been excluded from society in the recent past. If there needs to be restrictions as a minority who've refused vaccines are overwhelming the NHS then those causing the problem are the only ones who should be excluded, nobody else.
Better to not require vaccine passports. But if they are required, then locking down the unvaccinated is infinitely better than locking down everybody.
The government insisting you take a personal medical treatment is not something I am comfortable with. It up ends the power relationship between the state and the citizen
I completely agree with that.
But the government insisting you stay at home, schools are closed, businesses are closed etc is something I am not comfortable with either.
If the choice is Vaxxports or No Restrictions then I choose No Restrictions. If the choice is Vaxxports or Lockdown then I choose Vaxxports.
Anyone who wishes to remain at home instead of having the vaccine has the right to do that, and is no worse off than if we had a lockdown.
Lockdown is being pushed by obsessives at the moment, not the government
Additionally the principle on lockdown has already been conceded. There is downside to conceding a new power to the government. Powers, once given, are very hard to roll back
Is anyone getting caught by Mayor Sadiq's latest ULEZ wheeze?
£12.50 per day for commuting from Wood Green, Walthamstow, Chiswick or Kew out of London if you have the wrong car. £3k a year for all the working days.
Hmmm.
The other interesting one is that afaik he has not yet restored the 90% discount on the CC for residents of the CC zone. That's an extra £13.50 a day for anyone living in most of Zone 1 and part of Zone 2 every time they use a car.
Electorally relevant? Who may this hurt?
Do those of you living there notice this?
Yes!
He’s also refused to roll back the weekend charge as he promised in the election.
It costs us £20 each time we drive
Checking I see that people registered for CC pre-July 2020 have their discount grandfathered in. Shouldn't this be you, or do you live in the 'burbs eg Zone 2 ?
I’m in the burbs
How can it cost you £20 each time you drive if you don't live in the CC zone? I live in zone 2 and in the ten years I've lived here I've never paid the CC, for the simple reason that I never drive into Central London. Get the bus!
The primary driving we do is to the Tower. Most other places we walk.
Are you a Beefeater? The Tower of London isn't exactly hard to reach by tube or bus. AIUI the congestion charge is specifically designed to discourage people from taking unnecessary car journeys, and so it sounds like your inconvenience is a feature not a bug. It simply wouldn't occur to me to drive into the CC zone from my home in zone 2.
To be fair, if you are not on the "right" tube lines for your destination, travel across London can be a pain.
For example, commuting into Paddington station.....
And driving in London is always an absolute pleasure with no pain whatsoever......
If you drive out of rush hour, it can be surprisingly easy to get around.
I drive in zone 1-2 in the evenings a couple of times a week and average 10-15mph. That is with being liberal with speed limits and driving positively. The first mile out is rarely less than 10 mins, I am a slow runner but can still run faster than that!
UK is paying for its governments not introducing proper Covid passports, I think. Potential benefits are (1) driving higher vaccination rates (2) keeping a proportion of infected people out of venues where the disease can easily be passed on (3) enforcing proper tracing if there is an outbreak (4) allowing venues to stay open if further restrictions are required.
Although not directly comparable, I note according to Our World in Data that hospital admissions are running about five times higher in the UK than France, Germany and Italy.
The UK is benefiting from the importance that its government puts on liberty
I'm struggling to think how this takes away your liberty. You don't need to show your passport, but if you don't you can't come in. It is your liberty to choose. I also don't have the liberty to drive on the right side of the road. Do you think I should have the liberty to do so without consequences. You are not allowed to because of the harm you may do to others.
You are not being prevented from driving to A to B.
You are being prevented from participating in normal life.
Nobody is being prevented from participating in normal life.
They're just being asked to show their vaccine ID, which is bad enough and I oppose it on that ground, but lets not get carried away.
Under the proposal, If you are no vaccinated then you can’t go to restaurants, venues, museums etc. You are excluded from society because the government has insisted that you take a medical treatment
Then get vaccinated and you cease to be excluded.
We've all been excluded from society in the recent past. If there needs to be restrictions as a minority who've refused vaccines are overwhelming the NHS then those causing the problem are the only ones who should be excluded, nobody else.
Better to not require vaccine passports. But if they are required, then locking down the unvaccinated is infinitely better than locking down everybody.
The government insisting you take a personal medical treatment is not something I am comfortable with. It up ends the power relationship between the state and the citizen
Its not insisting that you take the treatment, but it is making it harder for you to have fun etc if you don't...
And the state shouldn’t have that right (as opposed to having the power, which it clearly does, subject to parliamentary approval).
That’s the issue. Government is (indirectly) elected by the people and its authority is derived from the people.
The ability to exclude from society (prison or exile) is the ultimate sanction the state can apply and only for a breach of the criminal law.
Extending that to include “not doing something I think you should do” is a massive extension of state power
In a health emergency? I think the pandemic applies. its been like a war. Some of the stories of people's mental health (a teacher on the radio this morning) are quite difficult to listen to. I suspect a lot of people are not coping well.
It's a good example of the crap you post if nothing else ....
How? That tweet by Carrie Johnson and Gove's comment were utter nonsense. The EU did not stop us having higher standards. In fact the UK did have a tendency to gold plate EU regulations and then blame the EU for them.
The EU prevented us from failing below minimum standards, it did not prevent us from exceeding them so Gove was being entirely irrational (I suspect intentionally so for those to stupid to realise it).
That such a transparently obvious truth needs explaining shows why Brexit discussions are futile. People believe what they want to believe.
Carrie’s tweet wasn’t utter nonsense. Meaningless and with no predictive value, but accurate.
Leaving doesn’t mean we WILL do x In fact we CAN do y
Yes very clever. Accurate but dancing on a pin head I feel.
Now using your phrasing how about this:
It does however mean we CAN do x (which we shouldn't) And we COULD ALWAYS do y but by say we CAN NOW (as Gove said) rather than just saying we CAN (as you post) implies that we COULDN'T before (which is a lie)
“Can now” doesn’t IMPLY “couldn’t before”. You are INFERRING that.
But it’s all dancing
What do you think the word 'NOW' infers then if it doesn't infer you couldn't before? I mean why say it otherwise. It has a clear meaning.
UK is paying for its governments not introducing proper Covid passports, I think. Potential benefits are (1) driving higher vaccination rates (2) keeping a proportion of infected people out of venues where the disease can easily be passed on (3) enforcing proper tracing if there is an outbreak (4) allowing venues to stay open if further restrictions are required.
Although not directly comparable, I note according to Our World in Data that hospital admissions are running about five times higher in the UK than France, Germany and Italy.
The UK is benefiting from the importance that its government puts on liberty
I'm struggling to think how this takes away your liberty. You don't need to show your passport, but if you don't you can't come in. It is your liberty to choose. I also don't have the liberty to drive on the right side of the road. Do you think I should have the liberty to do so without consequences. You are not allowed to because of the harm you may do to others.
You are not being prevented from driving to A to B.
You are being prevented from participating in normal life.
Nobody is being prevented from participating in normal life.
They're just being asked to show their vaccine ID, which is bad enough and I oppose it on that ground, but lets not get carried away.
Under the proposal, If you are no vaccinated then you can’t go to restaurants, venues, museums etc. You are excluded from society because the government has insisted that you take a medical treatment
Then get vaccinated and you cease to be excluded.
We've all been excluded from society in the recent past. If there needs to be restrictions as a minority who've refused vaccines are overwhelming the NHS then those causing the problem are the only ones who should be excluded, nobody else.
Better to not require vaccine passports. But if they are required, then locking down the unvaccinated is infinitely better than locking down everybody.
The government insisting you take a personal medical treatment is not something I am comfortable with. It up ends the power relationship between the state and the citizen
I completely agree with that.
But the government insisting you stay at home, schools are closed, businesses are closed etc is something I am not comfortable with either.
If the choice is Vaxxports or No Restrictions then I choose No Restrictions. If the choice is Vaxxports or Lockdown then I choose Vaxxports.
Anyone who wishes to remain at home instead of having the vaccine has the right to do that, and is no worse off than if we had a lockdown.
Lockdown is being pushed by obsessives at the moment, not the government
Additionally the principle on lockdown has already been conceded. There is downside to conceding a new power to the government. Powers, once given, are very hard to roll back
I agree on the first statement which is why I oppose even mask mandates, let alone vaxxports or lockdowns.
But if a lockdown is on the cards, then the Overton Window has shifted so far that a vaxxport is a lesser power than a full lockdown.
It's a good example of the crap you post if nothing else ....
How? That tweet by Carrie Johnson and Gove's comment were utter nonsense. The EU did not stop us having higher standards. In fact the UK did have a tendency to gold plate EU regulations and then blame the EU for them.
The EU prevented us from failing below minimum standards, it did not prevent us from exceeding them so Gove was being entirely irrational (I suspect intentionally so for those to stupid to realise it).
That such a transparently obvious truth needs explaining shows why Brexit discussions are futile. People believe what they want to believe.
Carrie’s tweet wasn’t utter nonsense. Meaningless and with no predictive value, but accurate.
Leaving doesn’t mean we WILL do x In fact we CAN do y
You are being too literal, Charles.
The message was unambiguously that once free of the EU shackles the UK could finally introduce higher standards.
And the people saying this were part of a government that had just overseen a bonfire of environmental regulations, the limits they ran in to being the pesky EU regulations that they have no control over.
Is anyone getting caught by Mayor Sadiq's latest ULEZ wheeze?
£12.50 per day for commuting from Wood Green, Walthamstow, Chiswick or Kew out of London if you have the wrong car. £3k a year for all the working days.
Hmmm.
The other interesting one is that afaik he has not yet restored the 90% discount on the CC for residents of the CC zone. That's an extra £13.50 a day for anyone living in most of Zone 1 and part of Zone 2 every time they use a car.
Electorally relevant? Who may this hurt?
Do those of you living there notice this?
Yes!
He’s also refused to roll back the weekend charge as he promised in the election.
It costs us £20 each time we drive
Get an ebike
Not taking my kid cycling across central London
For the next 4 years you can get an e-car.
Indeed an extra car is one of Sadiq's Solutions on his website.
I'd expect cycling in London to continue to improve, though there are not enough segregated routes yet.
The first time I did it I forgot to unclip myself from my pedals at the traffic lights in Trafalgar Square.
I have an e-cargo bike, which is fantastic, and I have sometimes taken 4 (small) children in it. I use it for at least 15km every day, it's generally quicker and a lot more fun than a car getting around the city. The cars give me more respect too. It's pretty flat around here, and the bike lanes are ok-ish, so might not work quite as well in London...
Hmmm.
I was rather amused to find that there is a Christiania brand of Danish Bikes.....
UK is paying for its governments not introducing proper Covid passports, I think. Potential benefits are (1) driving higher vaccination rates (2) keeping a proportion of infected people out of venues where the disease can easily be passed on (3) enforcing proper tracing if there is an outbreak (4) allowing venues to stay open if further restrictions are required.
Although not directly comparable, I note according to Our World in Data that hospital admissions are running about five times higher in the UK than France, Germany and Italy.
The UK is benefiting from the importance that its government puts on liberty
I'm struggling to think how this takes away your liberty. You don't need to show your passport, but if you don't you can't come in. It is your liberty to choose. I also don't have the liberty to drive on the right side of the road. Do you think I should have the liberty to do so without consequences. You are not allowed to because of the harm you may do to others.
You are not being prevented from driving to A to B.
You are being prevented from participating in normal life.
Nobody is being prevented from participating in normal life.
They're just being asked to show their vaccine ID, which is bad enough and I oppose it on that ground, but lets not get carried away.
Under the proposal, If you are no vaccinated then you can’t go to restaurants, venues, museums etc. You are excluded from society because the government has insisted that you take a medical treatment
Then get vaccinated and you cease to be excluded.
We've all been excluded from society in the recent past. If there needs to be restrictions as a minority who've refused vaccines are overwhelming the NHS then those causing the problem are the only ones who should be excluded, nobody else.
Better to not require vaccine passports. But if they are required, then locking down the unvaccinated is infinitely better than locking down everybody.
The government insisting you take a personal medical treatment is not something I am comfortable with. It up ends the power relationship between the state and the citizen
Its not insisting that you take the treatment, but it is making it harder for you to have fun etc if you don't...
And the state shouldn’t have that right (as opposed to having the power, which it clearly does, subject to parliamentary approval).
That’s the issue. Government is (indirectly) elected by the people and its authority is derived from the people.
The ability to exclude from society (prison or exile) is the ultimate sanction the state can apply and only for a breach of the criminal law.
Extending that to include “not doing something I think you should do” is a massive extension of state power
Shamima Begum (exiled by the Home Secretary after no court of law has adjudicated on any breach of the criminal law) says hi. Governments do this kind of thing all the time (I am not saying they should).
She had the opportunity to appeal in a UK court (albeit not in person) AIUI
UK is paying for its governments not introducing proper Covid passports, I think. Potential benefits are (1) driving higher vaccination rates (2) keeping a proportion of infected people out of venues where the disease can easily be passed on (3) enforcing proper tracing if there is an outbreak (4) allowing venues to stay open if further restrictions are required.
Although not directly comparable, I note according to Our World in Data that hospital admissions are running about five times higher in the UK than France, Germany and Italy.
The UK is benefiting from the importance that its government puts on liberty
I'm struggling to think how this takes away your liberty. You don't need to show your passport, but if you don't you can't come in. It is your liberty to choose. I also don't have the liberty to drive on the right side of the road. Do you think I should have the liberty to do so without consequences. You are not allowed to because of the harm you may do to others.
You are not being prevented from driving to A to B.
You are being prevented from participating in normal life.
Nobody is being prevented from participating in normal life.
They're just being asked to show their vaccine ID, which is bad enough and I oppose it on that ground, but lets not get carried away.
Under the proposal, If you are no vaccinated then you can’t go to restaurants, venues, museums etc. You are excluded from society because the government has insisted that you take a medical treatment
Then get vaccinated and you cease to be excluded.
We've all been excluded from society in the recent past. If there needs to be restrictions as a minority who've refused vaccines are overwhelming the NHS then those causing the problem are the only ones who should be excluded, nobody else.
Better to not require vaccine passports. But if they are required, then locking down the unvaccinated is infinitely better than locking down everybody.
The government insisting you take a personal medical treatment is not something I am comfortable with. It up ends the power relationship between the state and the citizen
Its not insisting that you take the treatment, but it is making it harder for you to have fun etc if you don't...
And the state shouldn’t have that right (as opposed to having the power, which it clearly does, subject to parliamentary approval).
That’s the issue. Government is (indirectly) elected by the people and its authority is derived from the people.
The ability to exclude from society (prison or exile) is the ultimate sanction the state can apply and only for a breach of the criminal law.
Extending that to include “not doing something I think you should do” is a massive extension of state power
In a health emergency? I think the pandemic applies. its been like a war. Some of the stories of people's mental health (a teacher on the radio this morning) are quite difficult to listen to. I suspect a lot of people are not coping well.
That is true. Mental health has been the biggest cost of lockdown.
UK is paying for its governments not introducing proper Covid passports, I think. Potential benefits are (1) driving higher vaccination rates (2) keeping a proportion of infected people out of venues where the disease can easily be passed on (3) enforcing proper tracing if there is an outbreak (4) allowing venues to stay open if further restrictions are required.
Although not directly comparable, I note according to Our World in Data that hospital admissions are running about five times higher in the UK than France, Germany and Italy.
The UK is benefiting from the importance that its government puts on liberty
I'm struggling to think how this takes away your liberty. You don't need to show your passport, but if you don't you can't come in. It is your liberty to choose. I also don't have the liberty to drive on the right side of the road. Do you think I should have the liberty to do so without consequences. You are not allowed to because of the harm you may do to others.
You are not being prevented from driving to A to B.
You are being prevented from participating in normal life.
Nobody is being prevented from participating in normal life.
They're just being asked to show their vaccine ID, which is bad enough and I oppose it on that ground, but lets not get carried away.
Under the proposal, If you are no vaccinated then you can’t go to restaurants, venues, museums etc. You are excluded from society because the government has insisted that you take a medical treatment
Then get vaccinated and you cease to be excluded.
We've all been excluded from society in the recent past. If there needs to be restrictions as a minority who've refused vaccines are overwhelming the NHS then those causing the problem are the only ones who should be excluded, nobody else.
Better to not require vaccine passports. But if they are required, then locking down the unvaccinated is infinitely better than locking down everybody.
The government insisting you take a personal medical treatment is not something I am comfortable with. It up ends the power relationship between the state and the citizen
Its not insisting that you take the treatment, but it is making it harder for you to have fun etc if you don't...
And the state shouldn’t have that right (as opposed to having the power, which it clearly does, subject to parliamentary approval).
That’s the issue. Government is (indirectly) elected by the people and its authority is derived from the people.
The ability to exclude from society (prison or exile) is the ultimate sanction the state can apply and only for a breach of the criminal law.
Extending that to include “not doing something I think you should do” is a massive extension of state power
Shamima Begum (exiled by the Home Secretary after no court of law has adjudicated on any breach of the criminal law) says hi. Governments do this kind of thing all the time (I am not saying they should).
She exiled herself when she left the country to fight for ISIS. The Home Secretary just closed the gate after she left.
And she's had the chance to have her case go before courts.
If you can afford 125 grand for something with bendy pushrods and an utterly miserably 150cfm flow from the antique head design you can probably afford the ULEZ charge on something not shit.
I've just bought a barn find 28,000 mile 1977 E21 323i. It's amazing how slow 40+ year old fast cars are.
Is anyone getting caught by Mayor Sadiq's latest ULEZ wheeze?
£12.50 per day for commuting from Wood Green, Walthamstow, Chiswick or Kew out of London if you have the wrong car. £3k a year for all the working days.
Hmmm.
The other interesting one is that afaik he has not yet restored the 90% discount on the CC for residents of the CC zone. That's an extra £13.50 a day for anyone living in most of Zone 1 and part of Zone 2 every time they use a car.
Electorally relevant? Who may this hurt?
Do those of you living there notice this?
Yes!
He’s also refused to roll back the weekend charge as he promised in the election.
It costs us £20 each time we drive
Get an ebike
Not taking my kid cycling across central London
For the next 4 years you can get an e-car.
Indeed an extra car is one of Sadiq's Solutions on his website.
I'd expect cycling in London to continue to improve, though there are not enough segregated routes yet.
The first time I did it I forgot to unclip myself from my pedals at the traffic lights in Trafalgar Square.
I have an e-cargo bike, which is fantastic, and I have sometimes taken 4 (small) children in it. I use it for at least 15km every day, it's generally quicker and a lot more fun than a car getting around the city. The cars give me more respect too. It's pretty flat around here, and the bike lanes are ok-ish, so might not work quite as well in London...
Hmmm.
Don't know what's up with child on the left there, in my experience children love it. But not quite sure what the point of this picture is?
UK is paying for its governments not introducing proper Covid passports, I think. Potential benefits are (1) driving higher vaccination rates (2) keeping a proportion of infected people out of venues where the disease can easily be passed on (3) enforcing proper tracing if there is an outbreak (4) allowing venues to stay open if further restrictions are required.
Although not directly comparable, I note according to Our World in Data that hospital admissions are running about five times higher in the UK than France, Germany and Italy.
The UK is benefiting from the importance that its government puts on liberty
I'm struggling to think how this takes away your liberty. You don't need to show your passport, but if you don't you can't come in. It is your liberty to choose. I also don't have the liberty to drive on the right side of the road. Do you think I should have the liberty to do so without consequences. You are not allowed to because of the harm you may do to others.
You are not being prevented from driving to A to B.
You are being prevented from participating in normal life.
Nobody is being prevented from participating in normal life.
They're just being asked to show their vaccine ID, which is bad enough and I oppose it on that ground, but lets not get carried away.
Under the proposal, If you are no vaccinated then you can’t go to restaurants, venues, museums etc. You are excluded from society because the government has insisted that you take a medical treatment
Then get vaccinated and you cease to be excluded.
We've all been excluded from society in the recent past. If there needs to be restrictions as a minority who've refused vaccines are overwhelming the NHS then those causing the problem are the only ones who should be excluded, nobody else.
Better to not require vaccine passports. But if they are required, then locking down the unvaccinated is infinitely better than locking down everybody.
The government insisting you take a personal medical treatment is not something I am comfortable with. It up ends the power relationship between the state and the citizen
Its not insisting that you take the treatment, but it is making it harder for you to have fun etc if you don't...
And the state shouldn’t have that right (as opposed to having the power, which it clearly does, subject to parliamentary approval).
That’s the issue. Government is (indirectly) elected by the people and its authority is derived from the people.
The ability to exclude from society (prison or exile) is the ultimate sanction the state can apply and only for a breach of the criminal law.
Extending that to include “not doing something I think you should do” is a massive extension of state power
Shamima Begum (exiled by the Home Secretary after no court of law has adjudicated on any breach of the criminal law) says hi. Governments do this kind of thing all the time (I am not saying they should).
She exiled herself when she left the country to fight for ISIS. The Home Secretary just closed the gate after she left.
And she's had the chance to have her case go before courts.
She should be tried for the war crimes that she committed.
UK is paying for its governments not introducing proper Covid passports, I think. Potential benefits are (1) driving higher vaccination rates (2) keeping a proportion of infected people out of venues where the disease can easily be passed on (3) enforcing proper tracing if there is an outbreak (4) allowing venues to stay open if further restrictions are required.
Although not directly comparable, I note according to Our World in Data that hospital admissions are running about five times higher in the UK than France, Germany and Italy.
The UK is benefiting from the importance that its government puts on liberty
I'm struggling to think how this takes away your liberty. You don't need to show your passport, but if you don't you can't come in. It is your liberty to choose. I also don't have the liberty to drive on the right side of the road. Do you think I should have the liberty to do so without consequences. You are not allowed to because of the harm you may do to others.
You are not being prevented from driving to A to B.
You are being prevented from participating in normal life.
Nobody is being prevented from participating in normal life.
They're just being asked to show their vaccine ID, which is bad enough and I oppose it on that ground, but lets not get carried away.
Under the proposal, If you are no vaccinated then you can’t go to restaurants, venues, museums etc. You are excluded from society because the government has insisted that you take a medical treatment
Then get vaccinated and you cease to be excluded.
We've all been excluded from society in the recent past. If there needs to be restrictions as a minority who've refused vaccines are overwhelming the NHS then those causing the problem are the only ones who should be excluded, nobody else.
Better to not require vaccine passports. But if they are required, then locking down the unvaccinated is infinitely better than locking down everybody.
The government insisting you take a personal medical treatment is not something I am comfortable with. It up ends the power relationship between the state and the citizen
Its not insisting that you take the treatment, but it is making it harder for you to have fun etc if you don't...
And the state shouldn’t have that right (as opposed to having the power, which it clearly does, subject to parliamentary approval).
That’s the issue. Government is (indirectly) elected by the people and its authority is derived from the people.
The ability to exclude from society (prison or exile) is the ultimate sanction the state can apply and only for a breach of the criminal law.
Extending that to include “not doing something I think you should do” is a massive extension of state power
Shamima Begum (exiled by the Home Secretary after no court of law has adjudicated on any breach of the criminal law) says hi. Governments do this kind of thing all the time (I am not saying they should).
She exiled herself when she left the country to fight for ISIS. The Home Secretary just closed the gate after she left.
And she's had the chance to have her case go before courts.
She should be tried for the war crimes that she committed.
Indeed. In the country she committed those crimes, not in the UK.
UK is paying for its governments not introducing proper Covid passports, I think. Potential benefits are (1) driving higher vaccination rates (2) keeping a proportion of infected people out of venues where the disease can easily be passed on (3) enforcing proper tracing if there is an outbreak (4) allowing venues to stay open if further restrictions are required.
Although not directly comparable, I note according to Our World in Data that hospital admissions are running about five times higher in the UK than France, Germany and Italy.
The UK is benefiting from the importance that its government puts on liberty
I'm struggling to think how this takes away your liberty. You don't need to show your passport, but if you don't you can't come in. It is your liberty to choose. I also don't have the liberty to drive on the right side of the road. Do you think I should have the liberty to do so without consequences. You are not allowed to because of the harm you may do to others.
You are not being prevented from driving to A to B.
You are being prevented from participating in normal life.
Nobody is being prevented from participating in normal life.
They're just being asked to show their vaccine ID, which is bad enough and I oppose it on that ground, but lets not get carried away.
Under the proposal, If you are no vaccinated then you can’t go to restaurants, venues, museums etc. You are excluded from society because the government has insisted that you take a medical treatment
Then get vaccinated and you cease to be excluded.
We've all been excluded from society in the recent past. If there needs to be restrictions as a minority who've refused vaccines are overwhelming the NHS then those causing the problem are the only ones who should be excluded, nobody else.
Better to not require vaccine passports. But if they are required, then locking down the unvaccinated is infinitely better than locking down everybody.
The government insisting you take a personal medical treatment is not something I am comfortable with. It up ends the power relationship between the state and the citizen
Its not insisting that you take the treatment, but it is making it harder for you to have fun etc if you don't...
And the state shouldn’t have that right (as opposed to having the power, which it clearly does, subject to parliamentary approval).
That’s the issue. Government is (indirectly) elected by the people and its authority is derived from the people.
The ability to exclude from society (prison or exile) is the ultimate sanction the state can apply and only for a breach of the criminal law.
Extending that to include “not doing something I think you should do” is a massive extension of state power
Shamima Begum (exiled by the Home Secretary after no court of law has adjudicated on any breach of the criminal law) says hi. Governments do this kind of thing all the time (I am not saying they should).
She exiled herself when she left the country to fight for ISIS. The Home Secretary just closed the gate after she left.
And she's had the chance to have her case go before courts.
She should be tried for the war crimes that she committed.
Indeed. In the country she committed those crimes, not in the UK.
Why? War crimes are considered to be prosecutable by any involved party. For quite a broad definition of "involved party"
I know that there is an interesting reluctance for state prosecutions of non-state actors for war crimes.... Which is another story.
UK is paying for its governments not introducing proper Covid passports, I think. Potential benefits are (1) driving higher vaccination rates (2) keeping a proportion of infected people out of venues where the disease can easily be passed on (3) enforcing proper tracing if there is an outbreak (4) allowing venues to stay open if further restrictions are required.
Although not directly comparable, I note according to Our World in Data that hospital admissions are running about five times higher in the UK than France, Germany and Italy.
The UK is benefiting from the importance that its government puts on liberty
I'm struggling to think how this takes away your liberty. You don't need to show your passport, but if you don't you can't come in. It is your liberty to choose. I also don't have the liberty to drive on the right side of the road. Do you think I should have the liberty to do so without consequences. You are not allowed to because of the harm you may do to others.
You are not being prevented from driving to A to B.
You are being prevented from participating in normal life.
Nobody is being prevented from participating in normal life.
They're just being asked to show their vaccine ID, which is bad enough and I oppose it on that ground, but lets not get carried away.
Under the proposal, If you are no vaccinated then you can’t go to restaurants, venues, museums etc. You are excluded from society because the government has insisted that you take a medical treatment
Then get vaccinated and you cease to be excluded.
We've all been excluded from society in the recent past. If there needs to be restrictions as a minority who've refused vaccines are overwhelming the NHS then those causing the problem are the only ones who should be excluded, nobody else.
Better to not require vaccine passports. But if they are required, then locking down the unvaccinated is infinitely better than locking down everybody.
The government insisting you take a personal medical treatment is not something I am comfortable with. It up ends the power relationship between the state and the citizen
I completely agree with that.
But the government insisting you stay at home, schools are closed, businesses are closed etc is something I am not comfortable with either.
If the choice is Vaxxports or No Restrictions then I choose No Restrictions. If the choice is Vaxxports or Lockdown then I choose Vaxxports.
Anyone who wishes to remain at home instead of having the vaccine has the right to do that, and is no worse off than if we had a lockdown.
Lockdown is being pushed by obsessives at the moment, not the government
Additionally the principle on lockdown has already been conceded. There is downside to conceding a new power to the government. Powers, once given, are very hard to roll back
Lockdown as a legal instruction was wrong. It would have been better if it had been voluntarily complied with. The same is true of vaccinations, however frustrating it is.
UK is paying for its governments not introducing proper Covid passports, I think. Potential benefits are (1) driving higher vaccination rates (2) keeping a proportion of infected people out of venues where the disease can easily be passed on (3) enforcing proper tracing if there is an outbreak (4) allowing venues to stay open if further restrictions are required.
Although not directly comparable, I note according to Our World in Data that hospital admissions are running about five times higher in the UK than France, Germany and Italy.
The UK is benefiting from the importance that its government puts on liberty
I'm struggling to think how this takes away your liberty. You don't need to show your passport, but if you don't you can't come in. It is your liberty to choose. I also don't have the liberty to drive on the right side of the road. Do you think I should have the liberty to do so without consequences. You are not allowed to because of the harm you may do to others.
You are not being prevented from driving to A to B.
You are being prevented from participating in normal life.
Nobody is being prevented from participating in normal life.
They're just being asked to show their vaccine ID, which is bad enough and I oppose it on that ground, but lets not get carried away.
Under the proposal, If you are no vaccinated then you can’t go to restaurants, venues, museums etc. You are excluded from society because the government has insisted that you take a medical treatment
Then get vaccinated and you cease to be excluded.
We've all been excluded from society in the recent past. If there needs to be restrictions as a minority who've refused vaccines are overwhelming the NHS then those causing the problem are the only ones who should be excluded, nobody else.
Better to not require vaccine passports. But if they are required, then locking down the unvaccinated is infinitely better than locking down everybody.
The government insisting you take a personal medical treatment is not something I am comfortable with. It up ends the power relationship between the state and the citizen
Its not insisting that you take the treatment, but it is making it harder for you to have fun etc if you don't...
And the state shouldn’t have that right (as opposed to having the power, which it clearly does, subject to parliamentary approval).
That’s the issue. Government is (indirectly) elected by the people and its authority is derived from the people.
The ability to exclude from society (prison or exile) is the ultimate sanction the state can apply and only for a breach of the criminal law.
Extending that to include “not doing something I think you should do” is a massive extension of state power
Shamima Begum (exiled by the Home Secretary after no court of law has adjudicated on any breach of the criminal law) says hi. Governments do this kind of thing all the time (I am not saying they should).
She had the opportunity to appeal in a UK court (albeit not in person) AIUI
AIUI it failed because the law gives the power to the Home Secretary to deprive people of their rights without them being convicted of breaking any laws by a court. Which is the point I am making. It is not without precedent for the government to give itself this kind of power over us. Perhaps you just didn't expect it to apply to someone like you. This is why it is dangerous to start disapplying universal rights when the person in question is someone we don't like. One day the person being deprived of their liberty might be you.
UK is paying for its governments not introducing proper Covid passports, I think. Potential benefits are (1) driving higher vaccination rates (2) keeping a proportion of infected people out of venues where the disease can easily be passed on (3) enforcing proper tracing if there is an outbreak (4) allowing venues to stay open if further restrictions are required.
Although not directly comparable, I note according to Our World in Data that hospital admissions are running about five times higher in the UK than France, Germany and Italy.
The UK is benefiting from the importance that its government puts on liberty
I'm struggling to think how this takes away your liberty. You don't need to show your passport, but if you don't you can't come in. It is your liberty to choose. I also don't have the liberty to drive on the right side of the road. Do you think I should have the liberty to do so without consequences. You are not allowed to because of the harm you may do to others.
You are not being prevented from driving to A to B.
You are being prevented from participating in normal life.
Nobody is being prevented from participating in normal life.
They're just being asked to show their vaccine ID, which is bad enough and I oppose it on that ground, but lets not get carried away.
Under the proposal, If you are no vaccinated then you can’t go to restaurants, venues, museums etc. You are excluded from society because the government has insisted that you take a medical treatment
Then get vaccinated and you cease to be excluded.
We've all been excluded from society in the recent past. If there needs to be restrictions as a minority who've refused vaccines are overwhelming the NHS then those causing the problem are the only ones who should be excluded, nobody else.
Better to not require vaccine passports. But if they are required, then locking down the unvaccinated is infinitely better than locking down everybody.
The government insisting you take a personal medical treatment is not something I am comfortable with. It up ends the power relationship between the state and the citizen
Its not insisting that you take the treatment, but it is making it harder for you to have fun etc if you don't...
And the state shouldn’t have that right (as opposed to having the power, which it clearly does, subject to parliamentary approval).
That’s the issue. Government is (indirectly) elected by the people and its authority is derived from the people.
The ability to exclude from society (prison or exile) is the ultimate sanction the state can apply and only for a breach of the criminal law.
Extending that to include “not doing something I think you should do” is a massive extension of state power
Shamima Begum (exiled by the Home Secretary after no court of law has adjudicated on any breach of the criminal law) says hi. Governments do this kind of thing all the time (I am not saying they should).
She exiled herself when she left the country to fight for ISIS. The Home Secretary just closed the gate after she left.
And she's had the chance to have her case go before courts.
She should be tried for the war crimes that she committed.
Indeed. In the country she committed those crimes, not in the UK.
Why? War crimes are considered to be prosecutable by any involved party. For quite a broad definition of "involved party"
I know that there is an interesting reluctance for state prosecutions of non-state actors for war crimes.... Which is another story.
Let the country that she committed the crimes in bring her to justice.
If we bring her back to try her for her crimes then we won't be able to deport her after her sentence. Allowing her back is rewarding her, why should she benefit from her crimes?
UK is paying for its governments not introducing proper Covid passports, I think. Potential benefits are (1) driving higher vaccination rates (2) keeping a proportion of infected people out of venues where the disease can easily be passed on (3) enforcing proper tracing if there is an outbreak (4) allowing venues to stay open if further restrictions are required.
Although not directly comparable, I note according to Our World in Data that hospital admissions are running about five times higher in the UK than France, Germany and Italy.
The UK is benefiting from the importance that its government puts on liberty
I'm struggling to think how this takes away your liberty. You don't need to show your passport, but if you don't you can't come in. It is your liberty to choose. I also don't have the liberty to drive on the right side of the road. Do you think I should have the liberty to do so without consequences. You are not allowed to because of the harm you may do to others.
You are not being prevented from driving to A to B.
You are being prevented from participating in normal life.
Nobody is being prevented from participating in normal life.
They're just being asked to show their vaccine ID, which is bad enough and I oppose it on that ground, but lets not get carried away.
Under the proposal, If you are no vaccinated then you can’t go to restaurants, venues, museums etc. You are excluded from society because the government has insisted that you take a medical treatment
Then get vaccinated and you cease to be excluded.
We've all been excluded from society in the recent past. If there needs to be restrictions as a minority who've refused vaccines are overwhelming the NHS then those causing the problem are the only ones who should be excluded, nobody else.
Better to not require vaccine passports. But if they are required, then locking down the unvaccinated is infinitely better than locking down everybody.
The government insisting you take a personal medical treatment is not something I am comfortable with. It up ends the power relationship between the state and the citizen
Its not insisting that you take the treatment, but it is making it harder for you to have fun etc if you don't...
And the state shouldn’t have that right (as opposed to having the power, which it clearly does, subject to parliamentary approval).
That’s the issue. Government is (indirectly) elected by the people and its authority is derived from the people.
The ability to exclude from society (prison or exile) is the ultimate sanction the state can apply and only for a breach of the criminal law.
Extending that to include “not doing something I think you should do” is a massive extension of state power
Shamima Begum (exiled by the Home Secretary after no court of law has adjudicated on any breach of the criminal law) says hi. Governments do this kind of thing all the time (I am not saying they should).
She exiled herself when she left the country to fight for ISIS. The Home Secretary just closed the gate after she left.
And she's had the chance to have her case go before courts.
She should be tried for the war crimes that she committed.
Indeed. In the country she committed those crimes, not in the UK.
Why? War crimes are considered to be prosecutable by any involved party. For quite a broad definition of "involved party"
I know that there is an interesting reluctance for state prosecutions of non-state actors for war crimes.... Which is another story.
Let the country that she committed the crimes in bring her to justice.
If we bring her back to try her for her crimes then we won't be able to deport her after her sentence. Allowing her back is rewarding her, why should she benefit from her crimes?
Is there a realistic prospect of prosecution where she is? Surely it's more important that justice is done rather than worrying so much about who does it?
UK is paying for its governments not introducing proper Covid passports, I think. Potential benefits are (1) driving higher vaccination rates (2) keeping a proportion of infected people out of venues where the disease can easily be passed on (3) enforcing proper tracing if there is an outbreak (4) allowing venues to stay open if further restrictions are required.
Although not directly comparable, I note according to Our World in Data that hospital admissions are running about five times higher in the UK than France, Germany and Italy.
The UK is benefiting from the importance that its government puts on liberty
I'm struggling to think how this takes away your liberty. You don't need to show your passport, but if you don't you can't come in. It is your liberty to choose. I also don't have the liberty to drive on the right side of the road. Do you think I should have the liberty to do so without consequences. You are not allowed to because of the harm you may do to others.
You are not being prevented from driving to A to B.
You are being prevented from participating in normal life.
Nobody is being prevented from participating in normal life.
They're just being asked to show their vaccine ID, which is bad enough and I oppose it on that ground, but lets not get carried away.
Under the proposal, If you are no vaccinated then you can’t go to restaurants, venues, museums etc. You are excluded from society because the government has insisted that you take a medical treatment
Then get vaccinated and you cease to be excluded.
We've all been excluded from society in the recent past. If there needs to be restrictions as a minority who've refused vaccines are overwhelming the NHS then those causing the problem are the only ones who should be excluded, nobody else.
Better to not require vaccine passports. But if they are required, then locking down the unvaccinated is infinitely better than locking down everybody.
The government insisting you take a personal medical treatment is not something I am comfortable with. It up ends the power relationship between the state and the citizen
Its not insisting that you take the treatment, but it is making it harder for you to have fun etc if you don't...
And the state shouldn’t have that right (as opposed to having the power, which it clearly does, subject to parliamentary approval).
That’s the issue. Government is (indirectly) elected by the people and its authority is derived from the people.
The ability to exclude from society (prison or exile) is the ultimate sanction the state can apply and only for a breach of the criminal law.
Extending that to include “not doing something I think you should do” is a massive extension of state power
Shamima Begum (exiled by the Home Secretary after no court of law has adjudicated on any breach of the criminal law) says hi. Governments do this kind of thing all the time (I am not saying they should).
She exiled herself when she left the country to fight for ISIS. The Home Secretary just closed the gate after she left.
And she's had the chance to have her case go before courts.
She should be tried for the war crimes that she committed.
Indeed. In the country she committed those crimes, not in the UK.
Why? War crimes are considered to be prosecutable by any involved party. For quite a broad definition of "involved party"
I know that there is an interesting reluctance for state prosecutions of non-state actors for war crimes.... Which is another story.
Let the country that she committed the crimes in bring her to justice.
If we bring her back to try her for her crimes then we won't be able to deport her after her sentence. Allowing her back is rewarding her, why should she benefit from her crimes?
She can go where she likes, after serving the first 199 years of her sentence.
UK is paying for its governments not introducing proper Covid passports, I think. Potential benefits are (1) driving higher vaccination rates (2) keeping a proportion of infected people out of venues where the disease can easily be passed on (3) enforcing proper tracing if there is an outbreak (4) allowing venues to stay open if further restrictions are required.
Although not directly comparable, I note according to Our World in Data that hospital admissions are running about five times higher in the UK than France, Germany and Italy.
The UK is benefiting from the importance that its government puts on liberty
I'm struggling to think how this takes away your liberty. You don't need to show your passport, but if you don't you can't come in. It is your liberty to choose. I also don't have the liberty to drive on the right side of the road. Do you think I should have the liberty to do so without consequences. You are not allowed to because of the harm you may do to others.
You are not being prevented from driving to A to B.
You are being prevented from participating in normal life.
Nobody is being prevented from participating in normal life.
They're just being asked to show their vaccine ID, which is bad enough and I oppose it on that ground, but lets not get carried away.
Under the proposal, If you are no vaccinated then you can’t go to restaurants, venues, museums etc. You are excluded from society because the government has insisted that you take a medical treatment
Then get vaccinated and you cease to be excluded.
We've all been excluded from society in the recent past. If there needs to be restrictions as a minority who've refused vaccines are overwhelming the NHS then those causing the problem are the only ones who should be excluded, nobody else.
Better to not require vaccine passports. But if they are required, then locking down the unvaccinated is infinitely better than locking down everybody.
The government insisting you take a personal medical treatment is not something I am comfortable with. It up ends the power relationship between the state and the citizen
Its not insisting that you take the treatment, but it is making it harder for you to have fun etc if you don't...
And the state shouldn’t have that right (as opposed to having the power, which it clearly does, subject to parliamentary approval).
That’s the issue. Government is (indirectly) elected by the people and its authority is derived from the people.
The ability to exclude from society (prison or exile) is the ultimate sanction the state can apply and only for a breach of the criminal law.
Extending that to include “not doing something I think you should do” is a massive extension of state power
Shamima Begum (exiled by the Home Secretary after no court of law has adjudicated on any breach of the criminal law) says hi. Governments do this kind of thing all the time (I am not saying they should).
She exiled herself when she left the country to fight for ISIS. The Home Secretary just closed the gate after she left.
And she's had the chance to have her case go before courts.
She should be tried for the war crimes that she committed.
Indeed. In the country she committed those crimes, not in the UK.
Why? War crimes are considered to be prosecutable by any involved party. For quite a broad definition of "involved party"
I know that there is an interesting reluctance for state prosecutions of non-state actors for war crimes.... Which is another story.
Let the country that she committed the crimes in bring her to justice.
If we bring her back to try her for her crimes then we won't be able to deport her after her sentence. Allowing her back is rewarding her, why should she benefit from her crimes?
Is there a realistic prospect of prosecution where she is? Surely it's more important that justice is done rather than worrying so much about who does it?
Stripping her of her citizenship so she can't go out, commit war crimes, then return back to the UK is a greater justice being done.
UK is paying for its governments not introducing proper Covid passports, I think. Potential benefits are (1) driving higher vaccination rates (2) keeping a proportion of infected people out of venues where the disease can easily be passed on (3) enforcing proper tracing if there is an outbreak (4) allowing venues to stay open if further restrictions are required.
Although not directly comparable, I note according to Our World in Data that hospital admissions are running about five times higher in the UK than France, Germany and Italy.
The UK is benefiting from the importance that its government puts on liberty
I'm struggling to think how this takes away your liberty. You don't need to show your passport, but if you don't you can't come in. It is your liberty to choose. I also don't have the liberty to drive on the right side of the road. Do you think I should have the liberty to do so without consequences. You are not allowed to because of the harm you may do to others.
You are not being prevented from driving to A to B.
You are being prevented from participating in normal life.
Nobody is being prevented from participating in normal life.
They're just being asked to show their vaccine ID, which is bad enough and I oppose it on that ground, but lets not get carried away.
Under the proposal, If you are no vaccinated then you can’t go to restaurants, venues, museums etc. You are excluded from society because the government has insisted that you take a medical treatment
Then get vaccinated and you cease to be excluded.
We've all been excluded from society in the recent past. If there needs to be restrictions as a minority who've refused vaccines are overwhelming the NHS then those causing the problem are the only ones who should be excluded, nobody else.
Better to not require vaccine passports. But if they are required, then locking down the unvaccinated is infinitely better than locking down everybody.
The government insisting you take a personal medical treatment is not something I am comfortable with. It up ends the power relationship between the state and the citizen
Its not insisting that you take the treatment, but it is making it harder for you to have fun etc if you don't...
And the state shouldn’t have that right (as opposed to having the power, which it clearly does, subject to parliamentary approval).
That’s the issue. Government is (indirectly) elected by the people and its authority is derived from the people.
The ability to exclude from society (prison or exile) is the ultimate sanction the state can apply and only for a breach of the criminal law.
Extending that to include “not doing something I think you should do” is a massive extension of state power
Shamima Begum (exiled by the Home Secretary after no court of law has adjudicated on any breach of the criminal law) says hi. Governments do this kind of thing all the time (I am not saying they should).
She had the opportunity to appeal in a UK court (albeit not in person) AIUI
AIUI it failed because the law gives the power to the Home Secretary to deprive people of their rights without them being convicted of breaking any laws by a court. Which is the point I am making. It is not without precedent for the government to give itself this kind of power over us. Perhaps you just didn't expect it to apply to someone like you. This is why it is dangerous to start disapplying universal rights when the person in question is someone we don't like. One day the person being deprived of their liberty might be you.
I don’t know the technicalities of the case. But all governments have the right to exile undesirables providing they don’t leave people stateless.
UK is paying for its governments not introducing proper Covid passports, I think. Potential benefits are (1) driving higher vaccination rates (2) keeping a proportion of infected people out of venues where the disease can easily be passed on (3) enforcing proper tracing if there is an outbreak (4) allowing venues to stay open if further restrictions are required.
Although not directly comparable, I note according to Our World in Data that hospital admissions are running about five times higher in the UK than France, Germany and Italy.
The UK is benefiting from the importance that its government puts on liberty
I'm struggling to think how this takes away your liberty. You don't need to show your passport, but if you don't you can't come in. It is your liberty to choose. I also don't have the liberty to drive on the right side of the road. Do you think I should have the liberty to do so without consequences. You are not allowed to because of the harm you may do to others.
You are not being prevented from driving to A to B.
You are being prevented from participating in normal life.
Nobody is being prevented from participating in normal life.
They're just being asked to show their vaccine ID, which is bad enough and I oppose it on that ground, but lets not get carried away.
Under the proposal, If you are no vaccinated then you can’t go to restaurants, venues, museums etc. You are excluded from society because the government has insisted that you take a medical treatment
Then get vaccinated and you cease to be excluded.
We've all been excluded from society in the recent past. If there needs to be restrictions as a minority who've refused vaccines are overwhelming the NHS then those causing the problem are the only ones who should be excluded, nobody else.
Better to not require vaccine passports. But if they are required, then locking down the unvaccinated is infinitely better than locking down everybody.
The government insisting you take a personal medical treatment is not something I am comfortable with. It up ends the power relationship between the state and the citizen
Its not insisting that you take the treatment, but it is making it harder for you to have fun etc if you don't...
And the state shouldn’t have that right (as opposed to having the power, which it clearly does, subject to parliamentary approval).
That’s the issue. Government is (indirectly) elected by the people and its authority is derived from the people.
The ability to exclude from society (prison or exile) is the ultimate sanction the state can apply and only for a breach of the criminal law.
Extending that to include “not doing something I think you should do” is a massive extension of state power
Shamima Begum (exiled by the Home Secretary after no court of law has adjudicated on any breach of the criminal law) says hi. Governments do this kind of thing all the time (I am not saying they should).
She exiled herself when she left the country to fight for ISIS. The Home Secretary just closed the gate after she left.
And she's had the chance to have her case go before courts.
She should be tried for the war crimes that she committed.
Indeed. In the country she committed those crimes, not in the UK.
Why? War crimes are considered to be prosecutable by any involved party. For quite a broad definition of "involved party"
I know that there is an interesting reluctance for state prosecutions of non-state actors for war crimes.... Which is another story.
Let the country that she committed the crimes in bring her to justice.
If we bring her back to try her for her crimes then we won't be able to deport her after her sentence. Allowing her back is rewarding her, why should she benefit from her crimes?
She can go where she likes, after serving the first 199 years of her sentence.
As if the courts in this country would see her serve 199 years.
UK is paying for its governments not introducing proper Covid passports, I think. Potential benefits are (1) driving higher vaccination rates (2) keeping a proportion of infected people out of venues where the disease can easily be passed on (3) enforcing proper tracing if there is an outbreak (4) allowing venues to stay open if further restrictions are required.
Although not directly comparable, I note according to Our World in Data that hospital admissions are running about five times higher in the UK than France, Germany and Italy.
The UK is benefiting from the importance that its government puts on liberty
I'm struggling to think how this takes away your liberty. You don't need to show your passport, but if you don't you can't come in. It is your liberty to choose. I also don't have the liberty to drive on the right side of the road. Do you think I should have the liberty to do so without consequences. You are not allowed to because of the harm you may do to others.
You are not being prevented from driving to A to B.
You are being prevented from participating in normal life.
Nobody is being prevented from participating in normal life.
They're just being asked to show their vaccine ID, which is bad enough and I oppose it on that ground, but lets not get carried away.
Under the proposal, If you are no vaccinated then you can’t go to restaurants, venues, museums etc. You are excluded from society because the government has insisted that you take a medical treatment
Then get vaccinated and you cease to be excluded.
We've all been excluded from society in the recent past. If there needs to be restrictions as a minority who've refused vaccines are overwhelming the NHS then those causing the problem are the only ones who should be excluded, nobody else.
Better to not require vaccine passports. But if they are required, then locking down the unvaccinated is infinitely better than locking down everybody.
The government insisting you take a personal medical treatment is not something I am comfortable with. It up ends the power relationship between the state and the citizen
Its not insisting that you take the treatment, but it is making it harder for you to have fun etc if you don't...
And the state shouldn’t have that right (as opposed to having the power, which it clearly does, subject to parliamentary approval).
That’s the issue. Government is (indirectly) elected by the people and its authority is derived from the people.
The ability to exclude from society (prison or exile) is the ultimate sanction the state can apply and only for a breach of the criminal law.
Extending that to include “not doing something I think you should do” is a massive extension of state power
Shamima Begum (exiled by the Home Secretary after no court of law has adjudicated on any breach of the criminal law) says hi. Governments do this kind of thing all the time (I am not saying they should).
She exiled herself when she left the country to fight for ISIS. The Home Secretary just closed the gate after she left.
And she's had the chance to have her case go before courts.
She should be tried for the war crimes that she committed.
Indeed. In the country she committed those crimes, not in the UK.
Why? War crimes are considered to be prosecutable by any involved party. For quite a broad definition of "involved party"
I know that there is an interesting reluctance for state prosecutions of non-state actors for war crimes.... Which is another story.
Let the country that she committed the crimes in bring her to justice.
If we bring her back to try her for her crimes then we won't be able to deport her after her sentence. Allowing her back is rewarding her, why should she benefit from her crimes?
Is there a realistic prospect of prosecution where she is? Surely it's more important that justice is done rather than worrying so much about who does it?
Stripping her of her citizenship so she can't go out, commit war crimes, then return back to the UK is a greater justice being done.
So you aren't really interested in seeing her prosecuted for her alleged crimes?
UK is paying for its governments not introducing proper Covid passports, I think. Potential benefits are (1) driving higher vaccination rates (2) keeping a proportion of infected people out of venues where the disease can easily be passed on (3) enforcing proper tracing if there is an outbreak (4) allowing venues to stay open if further restrictions are required.
Although not directly comparable, I note according to Our World in Data that hospital admissions are running about five times higher in the UK than France, Germany and Italy.
The UK is benefiting from the importance that its government puts on liberty
I'm struggling to think how this takes away your liberty. You don't need to show your passport, but if you don't you can't come in. It is your liberty to choose. I also don't have the liberty to drive on the right side of the road. Do you think I should have the liberty to do so without consequences. You are not allowed to because of the harm you may do to others.
You are not being prevented from driving to A to B.
You are being prevented from participating in normal life.
Nobody is being prevented from participating in normal life.
They're just being asked to show their vaccine ID, which is bad enough and I oppose it on that ground, but lets not get carried away.
Under the proposal, If you are no vaccinated then you can’t go to restaurants, venues, museums etc. You are excluded from society because the government has insisted that you take a medical treatment
Then get vaccinated and you cease to be excluded.
We've all been excluded from society in the recent past. If there needs to be restrictions as a minority who've refused vaccines are overwhelming the NHS then those causing the problem are the only ones who should be excluded, nobody else.
Better to not require vaccine passports. But if they are required, then locking down the unvaccinated is infinitely better than locking down everybody.
The government insisting you take a personal medical treatment is not something I am comfortable with. It up ends the power relationship between the state and the citizen
Its not insisting that you take the treatment, but it is making it harder for you to have fun etc if you don't...
And the state shouldn’t have that right (as opposed to having the power, which it clearly does, subject to parliamentary approval).
That’s the issue. Government is (indirectly) elected by the people and its authority is derived from the people.
The ability to exclude from society (prison or exile) is the ultimate sanction the state can apply and only for a breach of the criminal law.
Extending that to include “not doing something I think you should do” is a massive extension of state power
Shamima Begum (exiled by the Home Secretary after no court of law has adjudicated on any breach of the criminal law) says hi. Governments do this kind of thing all the time (I am not saying they should).
She exiled herself when she left the country to fight for ISIS. The Home Secretary just closed the gate after she left.
And she's had the chance to have her case go before courts.
She should be tried for the war crimes that she committed.
Indeed. In the country she committed those crimes, not in the UK.
Why? War crimes are considered to be prosecutable by any involved party. For quite a broad definition of "involved party"
I know that there is an interesting reluctance for state prosecutions of non-state actors for war crimes.... Which is another story.
Let the country that she committed the crimes in bring her to justice.
If we bring her back to try her for her crimes then we won't be able to deport her after her sentence. Allowing her back is rewarding her, why should she benefit from her crimes?
Is there a realistic prospect of prosecution where she is? Surely it's more important that justice is done rather than worrying so much about who does it?
Stripping her of her citizenship so she can't go out, commit war crimes, then return back to the UK is a greater justice being done.
So you aren't really interested in seeing her prosecuted for her alleged crimes?
Not if the price of seeing her prosecuted is allowing her back into this country, no.
UK is paying for its governments not introducing proper Covid passports, I think. Potential benefits are (1) driving higher vaccination rates (2) keeping a proportion of infected people out of venues where the disease can easily be passed on (3) enforcing proper tracing if there is an outbreak (4) allowing venues to stay open if further restrictions are required.
Although not directly comparable, I note according to Our World in Data that hospital admissions are running about five times higher in the UK than France, Germany and Italy.
The UK is benefiting from the importance that its government puts on liberty
I'm struggling to think how this takes away your liberty. You don't need to show your passport, but if you don't you can't come in. It is your liberty to choose. I also don't have the liberty to drive on the right side of the road. Do you think I should have the liberty to do so without consequences. You are not allowed to because of the harm you may do to others.
You are not being prevented from driving to A to B.
You are being prevented from participating in normal life.
Nobody is being prevented from participating in normal life.
They're just being asked to show their vaccine ID, which is bad enough and I oppose it on that ground, but lets not get carried away.
Under the proposal, If you are no vaccinated then you can’t go to restaurants, venues, museums etc. You are excluded from society because the government has insisted that you take a medical treatment
Then get vaccinated and you cease to be excluded.
We've all been excluded from society in the recent past. If there needs to be restrictions as a minority who've refused vaccines are overwhelming the NHS then those causing the problem are the only ones who should be excluded, nobody else.
Better to not require vaccine passports. But if they are required, then locking down the unvaccinated is infinitely better than locking down everybody.
The government insisting you take a personal medical treatment is not something I am comfortable with. It up ends the power relationship between the state and the citizen
I completely agree with that.
But the government insisting you stay at home, schools are closed, businesses are closed etc is something I am not comfortable with either.
If the choice is Vaxxports or No Restrictions then I choose No Restrictions. If the choice is Vaxxports or Lockdown then I choose Vaxxports.
Anyone who wishes to remain at home instead of having the vaccine has the right to do that, and is no worse off than if we had a lockdown.
Lockdown is being pushed by obsessives at the moment, not the government
Additionally the principle on lockdown has already been conceded. There is downside to conceding a new power to the government. Powers, once given, are very hard to roll back
Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Florida, Texas are back to fairly normal life. Florida and Sweden were there by 2020.
Large parts of the 'third world' used the drugs whose names get you cancelled or expelled from social media because they're out of patent and cheap.
Ask the BBC and Guardian - the most biased news coverage since Mar 2020 - why they're not publishing fear stories about India daily, as in May 2021.
Because the problem's mostly gone away, although not in Kerala which followed the UK policy and banned cheap generic drugs, just like the NHS.
Anyone not jabbed and not with prior T cell immunity from a previous coronavirus, including some common colds, is likely to have had Delta. If so they have protection for decades, maybe life.
Since the jabbed spread the infection as much as the unjabbed, quite apart from the civil liberties problem please tell me why embryonic social credit passes - so sorry, 'vaxports' - work?
UK is paying for its governments not introducing proper Covid passports, I think. Potential benefits are (1) driving higher vaccination rates (2) keeping a proportion of infected people out of venues where the disease can easily be passed on (3) enforcing proper tracing if there is an outbreak (4) allowing venues to stay open if further restrictions are required.
Although not directly comparable, I note according to Our World in Data that hospital admissions are running about five times higher in the UK than France, Germany and Italy.
The UK is benefiting from the importance that its government puts on liberty
I'm struggling to think how this takes away your liberty. You don't need to show your passport, but if you don't you can't come in. It is your liberty to choose. I also don't have the liberty to drive on the right side of the road. Do you think I should have the liberty to do so without consequences. You are not allowed to because of the harm you may do to others.
You are not being prevented from driving to A to B.
You are being prevented from participating in normal life.
Nobody is being prevented from participating in normal life.
They're just being asked to show their vaccine ID, which is bad enough and I oppose it on that ground, but lets not get carried away.
Under the proposal, If you are no vaccinated then you can’t go to restaurants, venues, museums etc. You are excluded from society because the government has insisted that you take a medical treatment
Then get vaccinated and you cease to be excluded.
We've all been excluded from society in the recent past. If there needs to be restrictions as a minority who've refused vaccines are overwhelming the NHS then those causing the problem are the only ones who should be excluded, nobody else.
Better to not require vaccine passports. But if they are required, then locking down the unvaccinated is infinitely better than locking down everybody.
The government insisting you take a personal medical treatment is not something I am comfortable with. It up ends the power relationship between the state and the citizen
Its not insisting that you take the treatment, but it is making it harder for you to have fun etc if you don't...
And the state shouldn’t have that right (as opposed to having the power, which it clearly does, subject to parliamentary approval).
That’s the issue. Government is (indirectly) elected by the people and its authority is derived from the people.
The ability to exclude from society (prison or exile) is the ultimate sanction the state can apply and only for a breach of the criminal law.
Extending that to include “not doing something I think you should do” is a massive extension of state power
Shamima Begum (exiled by the Home Secretary after no court of law has adjudicated on any breach of the criminal law) says hi. Governments do this kind of thing all the time (I am not saying they should).
She exiled herself when she left the country to fight for ISIS. The Home Secretary just closed the gate after she left.
And she's had the chance to have her case go before courts.
She should be tried for the war crimes that she committed.
Indeed. In the country she committed those crimes, not in the UK.
Why? War crimes are considered to be prosecutable by any involved party. For quite a broad definition of "involved party"
I know that there is an interesting reluctance for state prosecutions of non-state actors for war crimes.... Which is another story.
Let the country that she committed the crimes in bring her to justice.
If we bring her back to try her for her crimes then we won't be able to deport her after her sentence. Allowing her back is rewarding her, why should she benefit from her crimes?
Is there a realistic prospect of prosecution where she is? Surely it's more important that justice is done rather than worrying so much about who does it?
Stripping her of her citizenship so she can't go out, commit war crimes, then return back to the UK is a greater justice being done.
Nope, she was brought up in the UK so we shouldn't be trying to pass her on to another country to deal with a problem created in this country.
UK is paying for its governments not introducing proper Covid passports, I think. Potential benefits are (1) driving higher vaccination rates (2) keeping a proportion of infected people out of venues where the disease can easily be passed on (3) enforcing proper tracing if there is an outbreak (4) allowing venues to stay open if further restrictions are required.
Although not directly comparable, I note according to Our World in Data that hospital admissions are running about five times higher in the UK than France, Germany and Italy.
The UK is benefiting from the importance that its government puts on liberty
I'm struggling to think how this takes away your liberty. You don't need to show your passport, but if you don't you can't come in. It is your liberty to choose. I also don't have the liberty to drive on the right side of the road. Do you think I should have the liberty to do so without consequences. You are not allowed to because of the harm you may do to others.
You are not being prevented from driving to A to B.
You are being prevented from participating in normal life.
Nobody is being prevented from participating in normal life.
They're just being asked to show their vaccine ID, which is bad enough and I oppose it on that ground, but lets not get carried away.
Under the proposal, If you are no vaccinated then you can’t go to restaurants, venues, museums etc. You are excluded from society because the government has insisted that you take a medical treatment
Then get vaccinated and you cease to be excluded.
We've all been excluded from society in the recent past. If there needs to be restrictions as a minority who've refused vaccines are overwhelming the NHS then those causing the problem are the only ones who should be excluded, nobody else.
Better to not require vaccine passports. But if they are required, then locking down the unvaccinated is infinitely better than locking down everybody.
The government insisting you take a personal medical treatment is not something I am comfortable with. It up ends the power relationship between the state and the citizen
Its not insisting that you take the treatment, but it is making it harder for you to have fun etc if you don't...
And the state shouldn’t have that right (as opposed to having the power, which it clearly does, subject to parliamentary approval).
That’s the issue. Government is (indirectly) elected by the people and its authority is derived from the people.
The ability to exclude from society (prison or exile) is the ultimate sanction the state can apply and only for a breach of the criminal law.
Extending that to include “not doing something I think you should do” is a massive extension of state power
Shamima Begum (exiled by the Home Secretary after no court of law has adjudicated on any breach of the criminal law) says hi. Governments do this kind of thing all the time (I am not saying they should).
She exiled herself when she left the country to fight for ISIS. The Home Secretary just closed the gate after she left.
And she's had the chance to have her case go before courts.
She should be tried for the war crimes that she committed.
Indeed. In the country she committed those crimes, not in the UK.
Why? War crimes are considered to be prosecutable by any involved party. For quite a broad definition of "involved party"
I know that there is an interesting reluctance for state prosecutions of non-state actors for war crimes.... Which is another story.
Let the country that she committed the crimes in bring her to justice.
If we bring her back to try her for her crimes then we won't be able to deport her after her sentence. Allowing her back is rewarding her, why should she benefit from her crimes?
Is there a realistic prospect of prosecution where she is? Surely it's more important that justice is done rather than worrying so much about who does it?
Stripping her of her citizenship so she can't go out, commit war crimes, then return back to the UK is a greater justice being done.
Nope, she was brought up in the UK so we shouldn't be trying to pass her on to another country to deal with a problem created in this country.
We're not "passing" her onto anyone else. She voluntarily left, we're just not taking her back and we're not obligated to do so.
TL;DR version: Wales is proposing to abolish separate sciences as a GCSE option.
I’m very glad I’m not teaching in Wales…
Wales is a Banana Republic ... without bananas. It has got poorer and poorer since devolution. It suits Llafur to keep Wales poor.
Most decisions in Wales are taken behind the scenes by influencing Llafur in Corruption Bay, Cardiff.
There is no-one in Llafur who understands even very basic science. There is no Minister for Science. There are two Ministers for Climate Change. They studied law and politics at University.
Llafur are under pressure to improve Welsh standings in International League Tables (the worst out of the 4 countries in the UK).
The easiest way to do that is to remove anything remotely difficult.
UK is paying for its governments not introducing proper Covid passports, I think. Potential benefits are (1) driving higher vaccination rates (2) keeping a proportion of infected people out of venues where the disease can easily be passed on (3) enforcing proper tracing if there is an outbreak (4) allowing venues to stay open if further restrictions are required.
Although not directly comparable, I note according to Our World in Data that hospital admissions are running about five times higher in the UK than France, Germany and Italy.
The UK is benefiting from the importance that its government puts on liberty
I'm struggling to think how this takes away your liberty. You don't need to show your passport, but if you don't you can't come in. It is your liberty to choose. I also don't have the liberty to drive on the right side of the road. Do you think I should have the liberty to do so without consequences. You are not allowed to because of the harm you may do to others.
You are not being prevented from driving to A to B.
You are being prevented from participating in normal life.
Nobody is being prevented from participating in normal life.
They're just being asked to show their vaccine ID, which is bad enough and I oppose it on that ground, but lets not get carried away.
Under the proposal, If you are no vaccinated then you can’t go to restaurants, venues, museums etc. You are excluded from society because the government has insisted that you take a medical treatment
Then get vaccinated and you cease to be excluded.
We've all been excluded from society in the recent past. If there needs to be restrictions as a minority who've refused vaccines are overwhelming the NHS then those causing the problem are the only ones who should be excluded, nobody else.
Better to not require vaccine passports. But if they are required, then locking down the unvaccinated is infinitely better than locking down everybody.
The government insisting you take a personal medical treatment is not something I am comfortable with. It up ends the power relationship between the state and the citizen
Its not insisting that you take the treatment, but it is making it harder for you to have fun etc if you don't...
And the state shouldn’t have that right (as opposed to having the power, which it clearly does, subject to parliamentary approval).
That’s the issue. Government is (indirectly) elected by the people and its authority is derived from the people.
The ability to exclude from society (prison or exile) is the ultimate sanction the state can apply and only for a breach of the criminal law.
Extending that to include “not doing something I think you should do” is a massive extension of state power
Shamima Begum (exiled by the Home Secretary after no court of law has adjudicated on any breach of the criminal law) says hi. Governments do this kind of thing all the time (I am not saying they should).
She exiled herself when she left the country to fight for ISIS. The Home Secretary just closed the gate after she left.
And she's had the chance to have her case go before courts.
She should be tried for the war crimes that she committed.
Indeed. In the country she committed those crimes, not in the UK.
Why? War crimes are considered to be prosecutable by any involved party. For quite a broad definition of "involved party"
I know that there is an interesting reluctance for state prosecutions of non-state actors for war crimes.... Which is another story.
Let the country that she committed the crimes in bring her to justice.
If we bring her back to try her for her crimes then we won't be able to deport her after her sentence. Allowing her back is rewarding her, why should she benefit from her crimes?
Is there a realistic prospect of prosecution where she is? Surely it's more important that justice is done rather than worrying so much about who does it?
Stripping her of her citizenship so she can't go out, commit war crimes, then return back to the UK is a greater justice being done.
Nope, she was brought up in the UK so we shouldn't be trying to pass her on to another country to deal with a problem created in this country.
Maybe we could sign a trade deal with Bangladesh so that they can benefit from our number one export. Best quality terrorists in the world. We could make a killing.
TL;DR version: Wales is proposing to abolish separate sciences as a GCSE option.
I’m very glad I’m not teaching in Wales…
Wales is a Banana Republic ... without bananas. It has got poorer and poorer since devolution. It suits Llafur to keep Wales poor.
Most decisions in Wales are taken behind the scenes by influencing Llafur in Corruption Bay, Cardiff.
There is no-one in Llafur who understands even very basic science. There is no Minister for Science. There are two Ministers for Climate Change. They studied law and politics at University.
Llafur are under pressure to improve Welsh standings in International League Tables (the worst out of the 4 countries in the UK).
The easiest way to do that is to remove anything remotely difficult.
UK is paying for its governments not introducing proper Covid passports, I think. Potential benefits are (1) driving higher vaccination rates (2) keeping a proportion of infected people out of venues where the disease can easily be passed on (3) enforcing proper tracing if there is an outbreak (4) allowing venues to stay open if further restrictions are required.
Although not directly comparable, I note according to Our World in Data that hospital admissions are running about five times higher in the UK than France, Germany and Italy.
The UK is benefiting from the importance that its government puts on liberty
I'm struggling to think how this takes away your liberty. You don't need to show your passport, but if you don't you can't come in. It is your liberty to choose. I also don't have the liberty to drive on the right side of the road. Do you think I should have the liberty to do so without consequences. You are not allowed to because of the harm you may do to others.
You are not being prevented from driving to A to B.
You are being prevented from participating in normal life.
Nobody is being prevented from participating in normal life.
They're just being asked to show their vaccine ID, which is bad enough and I oppose it on that ground, but lets not get carried away.
Under the proposal, If you are no vaccinated then you can’t go to restaurants, venues, museums etc. You are excluded from society because the government has insisted that you take a medical treatment
Then get vaccinated and you cease to be excluded.
We've all been excluded from society in the recent past. If there needs to be restrictions as a minority who've refused vaccines are overwhelming the NHS then those causing the problem are the only ones who should be excluded, nobody else.
Better to not require vaccine passports. But if they are required, then locking down the unvaccinated is infinitely better than locking down everybody.
The government insisting you take a personal medical treatment is not something I am comfortable with. It up ends the power relationship between the state and the citizen
I completely agree with that.
But the government insisting you stay at home, schools are closed, businesses are closed etc is something I am not comfortable with either.
If the choice is Vaxxports or No Restrictions then I choose No Restrictions. If the choice is Vaxxports or Lockdown then I choose Vaxxports.
Anyone who wishes to remain at home instead of having the vaccine has the right to do that, and is no worse off than if we had a lockdown.
Lockdown is being pushed by obsessives at the moment, not the government
Additionally the principle on lockdown has already been conceded. There is downside to conceding a new power to the government. Powers, once given, are very hard to roll back
Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Florida, Texas are back to fairly normal life. Florida and Sweden were there by 2020.
Large parts of the 'third world' used the drugs whose names get you cancelled or expelled from social media because they're out of patent and cheap.
Ask the BBC and Guardian - the most biased news coverage since Mar 2020 - why they're not publishing fear stories about India daily, as in May 2021.
Because the problem's mostly gone away, although not in Kerala which followed the UK policy and banned cheap generic drugs, just like the NHS.
Anyone not jabbed and not with prior T cell immunity from a previous coronavirus, including some common colds, is likely to have had Delta. If so they have protection for decades, maybe life.
Since the jabbed spread the infection as much as the unjabbed, quite apart from the civil liberties problem please tell me why embryonic social credit passes - so sorry, 'vaxports' - work?
UK is paying for its governments not introducing proper Covid passports, I think. Potential benefits are (1) driving higher vaccination rates (2) keeping a proportion of infected people out of venues where the disease can easily be passed on (3) enforcing proper tracing if there is an outbreak (4) allowing venues to stay open if further restrictions are required.
Although not directly comparable, I note according to Our World in Data that hospital admissions are running about five times higher in the UK than France, Germany and Italy.
The UK is benefiting from the importance that its government puts on liberty
I'm struggling to think how this takes away your liberty. You don't need to show your passport, but if you don't you can't come in. It is your liberty to choose. I also don't have the liberty to drive on the right side of the road. Do you think I should have the liberty to do so without consequences. You are not allowed to because of the harm you may do to others.
You are not being prevented from driving to A to B.
You are being prevented from participating in normal life.
Nobody is being prevented from participating in normal life.
They're just being asked to show their vaccine ID, which is bad enough and I oppose it on that ground, but lets not get carried away.
Under the proposal, If you are no vaccinated then you can’t go to restaurants, venues, museums etc. You are excluded from society because the government has insisted that you take a medical treatment
Then get vaccinated and you cease to be excluded.
We've all been excluded from society in the recent past. If there needs to be restrictions as a minority who've refused vaccines are overwhelming the NHS then those causing the problem are the only ones who should be excluded, nobody else.
Better to not require vaccine passports. But if they are required, then locking down the unvaccinated is infinitely better than locking down everybody.
The government insisting you take a personal medical treatment is not something I am comfortable with. It up ends the power relationship between the state and the citizen
Its not insisting that you take the treatment, but it is making it harder for you to have fun etc if you don't...
And the state shouldn’t have that right (as opposed to having the power, which it clearly does, subject to parliamentary approval).
That’s the issue. Government is (indirectly) elected by the people and its authority is derived from the people.
The ability to exclude from society (prison or exile) is the ultimate sanction the state can apply and only for a breach of the criminal law.
Extending that to include “not doing something I think you should do” is a massive extension of state power
Shamima Begum (exiled by the Home Secretary after no court of law has adjudicated on any breach of the criminal law) says hi. Governments do this kind of thing all the time (I am not saying they should).
She exiled herself when she left the country to fight for ISIS. The Home Secretary just closed the gate after she left.
And she's had the chance to have her case go before courts.
She should be tried for the war crimes that she committed.
Indeed. In the country she committed those crimes, not in the UK.
Why? War crimes are considered to be prosecutable by any involved party. For quite a broad definition of "involved party"
I know that there is an interesting reluctance for state prosecutions of non-state actors for war crimes.... Which is another story.
Let the country that she committed the crimes in bring her to justice.
If we bring her back to try her for her crimes then we won't be able to deport her after her sentence. Allowing her back is rewarding her, why should she benefit from her crimes?
Is there a realistic prospect of prosecution where she is? Surely it's more important that justice is done rather than worrying so much about who does it?
Stripping her of her citizenship so she can't go out, commit war crimes, then return back to the UK is a greater justice being done.
So you aren't really interested in seeing her prosecuted for her alleged crimes?
Not if the price of seeing her prosecuted is allowing her back into this country, no.
She is our fault so she is our problem to deal with.
The home secretary may not like it but she should be here and should be charged with whatever crimes she committed that we can charge her with.
TL;DR version: Wales is proposing to abolish separate sciences as a GCSE option.
I’m very glad I’m not teaching in Wales…
Wales is a Banana Republic ... without bananas. It has got poorer and poorer since devolution. It suits Llafur to keep Wales poor.
Most decisions in Wales are taken behind the scenes by influencing Llafur in Corruption Bay, Cardiff.
There is no-one in Llafur who understands even very basic science. There is no Minister for Science. There are two Ministers for Climate Change. They studied law and politics at University.
Llafur are under pressure to improve Welsh standings in International League Tables (the worst out of the 4 countries in the UK).
The easiest way to do that is to remove anything remotely difficult.
Why does it "suit Llafur to keep Wales poor"?
One obvious way to suppress separatism is to keep a country poor .... and therefore dependent.
UK is paying for its governments not introducing proper Covid passports, I think. Potential benefits are (1) driving higher vaccination rates (2) keeping a proportion of infected people out of venues where the disease can easily be passed on (3) enforcing proper tracing if there is an outbreak (4) allowing venues to stay open if further restrictions are required.
Although not directly comparable, I note according to Our World in Data that hospital admissions are running about five times higher in the UK than France, Germany and Italy.
The UK is benefiting from the importance that its government puts on liberty
I'm struggling to think how this takes away your liberty. You don't need to show your passport, but if you don't you can't come in. It is your liberty to choose. I also don't have the liberty to drive on the right side of the road. Do you think I should have the liberty to do so without consequences. You are not allowed to because of the harm you may do to others.
You are not being prevented from driving to A to B.
You are being prevented from participating in normal life.
Nobody is being prevented from participating in normal life.
They're just being asked to show their vaccine ID, which is bad enough and I oppose it on that ground, but lets not get carried away.
Under the proposal, If you are no vaccinated then you can’t go to restaurants, venues, museums etc. You are excluded from society because the government has insisted that you take a medical treatment
Then get vaccinated and you cease to be excluded.
We've all been excluded from society in the recent past. If there needs to be restrictions as a minority who've refused vaccines are overwhelming the NHS then those causing the problem are the only ones who should be excluded, nobody else.
Better to not require vaccine passports. But if they are required, then locking down the unvaccinated is infinitely better than locking down everybody.
The government insisting you take a personal medical treatment is not something I am comfortable with. It up ends the power relationship between the state and the citizen
I completely agree with that.
But the government insisting you stay at home, schools are closed, businesses are closed etc is something I am not comfortable with either.
If the choice is Vaxxports or No Restrictions then I choose No Restrictions. If the choice is Vaxxports or Lockdown then I choose Vaxxports.
Anyone who wishes to remain at home instead of having the vaccine has the right to do that, and is no worse off than if we had a lockdown.
Lockdown is being pushed by obsessives at the moment, not the government
Additionally the principle on lockdown has already been conceded. There is downside to conceding a new power to the government. Powers, once given, are very hard to roll back
Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Florida, Texas are back to fairly normal life. Florida and Sweden were there by 2020.
Large parts of the 'third world' used the drugs whose names get you cancelled or expelled from social media because they're out of patent and cheap.
Ask the BBC and Guardian - the most biased news coverage since Mar 2020 - why they're not publishing fear stories about India daily, as in May 2021.
Because the problem's mostly gone away, although not in Kerala which followed the UK policy and banned cheap generic drugs, just like the NHS.
Anyone not jabbed and not with prior T cell immunity from a previous coronavirus, including some common colds, is likely to have had Delta. If so they have protection for decades, maybe life.
Since the jabbed spread the infection as much as the unjabbed, quite apart from the civil liberties problem please tell me why embryonic social credit passes - so sorry, 'vaxports' - work?
I don’t respond to people who advocate ivermectin
I recall Abraham Lincoln - "Whenever I hear anyone arguing for slavery, I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally."
UK is paying for its governments not introducing proper Covid passports, I think. Potential benefits are (1) driving higher vaccination rates (2) keeping a proportion of infected people out of venues where the disease can easily be passed on (3) enforcing proper tracing if there is an outbreak (4) allowing venues to stay open if further restrictions are required.
Although not directly comparable, I note according to Our World in Data that hospital admissions are running about five times higher in the UK than France, Germany and Italy.
The UK is benefiting from the importance that its government puts on liberty
I'm struggling to think how this takes away your liberty. You don't need to show your passport, but if you don't you can't come in. It is your liberty to choose. I also don't have the liberty to drive on the right side of the road. Do you think I should have the liberty to do so without consequences. You are not allowed to because of the harm you may do to others.
You are not being prevented from driving to A to B.
You are being prevented from participating in normal life.
Nobody is being prevented from participating in normal life.
They're just being asked to show their vaccine ID, which is bad enough and I oppose it on that ground, but lets not get carried away.
Under the proposal, If you are no vaccinated then you can’t go to restaurants, venues, museums etc. You are excluded from society because the government has insisted that you take a medical treatment
Then get vaccinated and you cease to be excluded.
We've all been excluded from society in the recent past. If there needs to be restrictions as a minority who've refused vaccines are overwhelming the NHS then those causing the problem are the only ones who should be excluded, nobody else.
Better to not require vaccine passports. But if they are required, then locking down the unvaccinated is infinitely better than locking down everybody.
The government insisting you take a personal medical treatment is not something I am comfortable with. It up ends the power relationship between the state and the citizen
Its not insisting that you take the treatment, but it is making it harder for you to have fun etc if you don't...
And the state shouldn’t have that right (as opposed to having the power, which it clearly does, subject to parliamentary approval).
That’s the issue. Government is (indirectly) elected by the people and its authority is derived from the people.
The ability to exclude from society (prison or exile) is the ultimate sanction the state can apply and only for a breach of the criminal law.
Extending that to include “not doing something I think you should do” is a massive extension of state power
Shamima Begum (exiled by the Home Secretary after no court of law has adjudicated on any breach of the criminal law) says hi. Governments do this kind of thing all the time (I am not saying they should).
She exiled herself when she left the country to fight for ISIS. The Home Secretary just closed the gate after she left.
And she's had the chance to have her case go before courts.
She should be tried for the war crimes that she committed.
Indeed. In the country she committed those crimes, not in the UK.
Why? War crimes are considered to be prosecutable by any involved party. For quite a broad definition of "involved party"
I know that there is an interesting reluctance for state prosecutions of non-state actors for war crimes.... Which is another story.
Let the country that she committed the crimes in bring her to justice.
If we bring her back to try her for her crimes then we won't be able to deport her after her sentence. Allowing her back is rewarding her, why should she benefit from her crimes?
Is there a realistic prospect of prosecution where she is? Surely it's more important that justice is done rather than worrying so much about who does it?
Stripping her of her citizenship so she can't go out, commit war crimes, then return back to the UK is a greater justice being done.
So you aren't really interested in seeing her prosecuted for her alleged crimes?
Not if the price of seeing her prosecuted is allowing her back into this country, no.
She is our fault so she is our problem to deal with.
The home secretary may not like it but she should be here and should be charged with whatever crimes she committed that we can charge her with.
My 85yo father-in-law got Covid a few weeks ago. He lost his smell and had a runny nose and that was about it. Yesterday he got what we believe is Norovirus (vomiting bug) and spent most of yesterday being sick. He couldn't even sit up in bed without help then but is more mobile today and able to get himself to the loo and back. So from his experience, double-jabbed Covid is much milder than Norovirus.
TL;DR version: Wales is proposing to abolish separate sciences as a GCSE option.
I’m very glad I’m not teaching in Wales…
Wales is a Banana Republic ... without bananas. It has got poorer and poorer since devolution. It suits Llafur to keep Wales poor.
Most decisions in Wales are taken behind the scenes by influencing Llafur in Corruption Bay, Cardiff.
There is no-one in Llafur who understands even very basic science. There is no Minister for Science. There are two Ministers for Climate Change. They studied law and politics at University.
Llafur are under pressure to improve Welsh standings in International League Tables (the worst out of the 4 countries in the UK).
The easiest way to do that is to remove anything remotely difficult.
Why does it "suit Llafur to keep Wales poor"?
One obvious way to suppress separatism is to keep a country poor .... and therefore dependent.
TL;DR version: Wales is proposing to abolish separate sciences as a GCSE option.
I’m very glad I’m not teaching in Wales…
Wales is a Banana Republic ... without bananas. It has got poorer and poorer since devolution. It suits Llafur to keep Wales poor.
Most decisions in Wales are taken behind the scenes by influencing Llafur in Corruption Bay, Cardiff.
There is no-one in Llafur who understands even very basic science. There is no Minister for Science. There are two Ministers for Climate Change. They studied law and politics at University.
Llafur are under pressure to improve Welsh standings in International League Tables (the worst out of the 4 countries in the UK).
The easiest way to do that is to remove anything remotely difficult.
Why do you keep referring to Llafur? Aren’t they the Welsh People’s Historical Society?
My 19 year old petrol Ford Focus seems to be exempt from ULEZ unlike many much newer cars.
Petrol cars are okay if they comply with the Euro 4 standard, but diesels have to meet the Euro 6 standard. There’s plenty of 2015 diesels that have to pay the charge, but as you say a lot of older petrol cars are alright.
TL;DR version: Wales is proposing to abolish separate sciences as a GCSE option.
I’m very glad I’m not teaching in Wales…
Wales is a Banana Republic ... without bananas. It has got poorer and poorer since devolution. It suits Llafur to keep Wales poor.
Most decisions in Wales are taken behind the scenes by influencing Llafur in Corruption Bay, Cardiff.
There is no-one in Llafur who understands even very basic science. There is no Minister for Science. There are two Ministers for Climate Change. They studied law and politics at University.
Llafur are under pressure to improve Welsh standings in International League Tables (the worst out of the 4 countries in the UK).
The easiest way to do that is to remove anything remotely difficult.
There are a large number of pupils for whom the sciences are the easy subjects, and it the arts subjects, with all their ambiguity and subjectivity, which are hard. Having said that, they are also merging English Language with English Literature.
UK is paying for its governments not introducing proper Covid passports, I think. Potential benefits are (1) driving higher vaccination rates (2) keeping a proportion of infected people out of venues where the disease can easily be passed on (3) enforcing proper tracing if there is an outbreak (4) allowing venues to stay open if further restrictions are required.
Although not directly comparable, I note according to Our World in Data that hospital admissions are running about five times higher in the UK than France, Germany and Italy.
The UK is benefiting from the importance that its government puts on liberty
I'm struggling to think how this takes away your liberty. You don't need to show your passport, but if you don't you can't come in. It is your liberty to choose. I also don't have the liberty to drive on the right side of the road. Do you think I should have the liberty to do so without consequences. You are not allowed to because of the harm you may do to others.
You are not being prevented from driving to A to B.
You are being prevented from participating in normal life.
Nobody is being prevented from participating in normal life.
They're just being asked to show their vaccine ID, which is bad enough and I oppose it on that ground, but lets not get carried away.
Under the proposal, If you are no vaccinated then you can’t go to restaurants, venues, museums etc. You are excluded from society because the government has insisted that you take a medical treatment
Then get vaccinated and you cease to be excluded.
We've all been excluded from society in the recent past. If there needs to be restrictions as a minority who've refused vaccines are overwhelming the NHS then those causing the problem are the only ones who should be excluded, nobody else.
Better to not require vaccine passports. But if they are required, then locking down the unvaccinated is infinitely better than locking down everybody.
The government insisting you take a personal medical treatment is not something I am comfortable with. It up ends the power relationship between the state and the citizen
I completely agree with that.
But the government insisting you stay at home, schools are closed, businesses are closed etc is something I am not comfortable with either.
If the choice is Vaxxports or No Restrictions then I choose No Restrictions. If the choice is Vaxxports or Lockdown then I choose Vaxxports.
Anyone who wishes to remain at home instead of having the vaccine has the right to do that, and is no worse off than if we had a lockdown.
Lockdown is being pushed by obsessives at the moment, not the government
Additionally the principle on lockdown has already been conceded. There is downside to conceding a new power to the government. Powers, once given, are very hard to roll back
Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Florida, Texas are back to fairly normal life. Florida and Sweden were there by 2020.
Large parts of the 'third world' used the drugs whose names get you cancelled or expelled from social media because they're out of patent and cheap.
Ask the BBC and Guardian - the most biased news coverage since Mar 2020 - why they're not publishing fear stories about India daily, as in May 2021.
Because the problem's mostly gone away, although not in Kerala which followed the UK policy and banned cheap generic drugs, just like the NHS.
Anyone not jabbed and not with prior T cell immunity from a previous coronavirus, including some common colds, is likely to have had Delta. If so they have protection for decades, maybe life.
Since the jabbed spread the infection as much as the unjabbed, quite apart from the civil liberties problem please tell me why embryonic social credit passes - so sorry, 'vaxports' - work?
UK is paying for its governments not introducing proper Covid passports, I think. Potential benefits are (1) driving higher vaccination rates (2) keeping a proportion of infected people out of venues where the disease can easily be passed on (3) enforcing proper tracing if there is an outbreak (4) allowing venues to stay open if further restrictions are required.
Although not directly comparable, I note according to Our World in Data that hospital admissions are running about five times higher in the UK than France, Germany and Italy.
The UK is benefiting from the importance that its government puts on liberty
I'm struggling to think how this takes away your liberty. You don't need to show your passport, but if you don't you can't come in. It is your liberty to choose. I also don't have the liberty to drive on the right side of the road. Do you think I should have the liberty to do so without consequences. You are not allowed to because of the harm you may do to others.
You are not being prevented from driving to A to B.
You are being prevented from participating in normal life.
Nobody is being prevented from participating in normal life.
They're just being asked to show their vaccine ID, which is bad enough and I oppose it on that ground, but lets not get carried away.
Under the proposal, If you are no vaccinated then you can’t go to restaurants, venues, museums etc. You are excluded from society because the government has insisted that you take a medical treatment
Then get vaccinated and you cease to be excluded.
We've all been excluded from society in the recent past. If there needs to be restrictions as a minority who've refused vaccines are overwhelming the NHS then those causing the problem are the only ones who should be excluded, nobody else.
Better to not require vaccine passports. But if they are required, then locking down the unvaccinated is infinitely better than locking down everybody.
The government insisting you take a personal medical treatment is not something I am comfortable with. It up ends the power relationship between the state and the citizen
Its not insisting that you take the treatment, but it is making it harder for you to have fun etc if you don't...
And the state shouldn’t have that right (as opposed to having the power, which it clearly does, subject to parliamentary approval).
That’s the issue. Government is (indirectly) elected by the people and its authority is derived from the people.
The ability to exclude from society (prison or exile) is the ultimate sanction the state can apply and only for a breach of the criminal law.
Extending that to include “not doing something I think you should do” is a massive extension of state power
Shamima Begum (exiled by the Home Secretary after no court of law has adjudicated on any breach of the criminal law) says hi. Governments do this kind of thing all the time (I am not saying they should).
She exiled herself when she left the country to fight for ISIS. The Home Secretary just closed the gate after she left.
And she's had the chance to have her case go before courts.
She should be tried for the war crimes that she committed.
Indeed. In the country she committed those crimes, not in the UK.
Why? War crimes are considered to be prosecutable by any involved party. For quite a broad definition of "involved party"
I know that there is an interesting reluctance for state prosecutions of non-state actors for war crimes.... Which is another story.
Let the country that she committed the crimes in bring her to justice.
If we bring her back to try her for her crimes then we won't be able to deport her after her sentence. Allowing her back is rewarding her, why should she benefit from her crimes?
Is there a realistic prospect of prosecution where she is? Surely it's more important that justice is done rather than worrying so much about who does it?
Stripping her of her citizenship so she can't go out, commit war crimes, then return back to the UK is a greater justice being done.
So you aren't really interested in seeing her prosecuted for her alleged crimes?
Not if the price of seeing her prosecuted is allowing her back into this country, no.
She is our fault so she is our problem to deal with.
The home secretary may not like it but she should be here and should be charged with whatever crimes she committed that we can charge her with.
What she isn't is a problem for Bangladesh.
I was just typing out something to that effect. She's our problem and responsibility. As an aside, surely we don't want to start a kind of game of musical chairs in regards to criminal acts committed by dual nationals?
Having to stay in some dusty hell hole for the rest of her days might be regarded as a kind of natural justice by some, but I would prefer a more lawful kind.
TL;DR version: Wales is proposing to abolish separate sciences as a GCSE option.
I’m very glad I’m not teaching in Wales…
Wales is a Banana Republic ... without bananas. It has got poorer and poorer since devolution. It suits Llafur to keep Wales poor.
Most decisions in Wales are taken behind the scenes by influencing Llafur in Corruption Bay, Cardiff.
There is no-one in Llafur who understands even very basic science. There is no Minister for Science. There are two Ministers for Climate Change. They studied law and politics at University.
Llafur are under pressure to improve Welsh standings in International League Tables (the worst out of the 4 countries in the UK).
The easiest way to do that is to remove anything remotely difficult.
There are a large number of pupils for whom the sciences are the easy subjects, and it the arts subjects, with all their ambiguity and subjectivity, which are hard. Having said that, they are also merging English Language with English Literature.
I always thought it was a bit of a joke that you got two English GCSEs for around the same amount of learning as for maths, so I don't have a problem with that change (though, arguably, extra English should be an option like triple award science should be).
I notice that the NHS website has been updated to say that you can only book your booster after 6 months and 1 week.
According to the same website, the nearest walk-in vaccination centre to me in London is in Camden. But in the Lake District it is Blackpool. Which is ridiculous.
Maybe there will be places closer by for vaccinations done by appointment. I do hope so. Because if people have to travel such distances for booster shots no wonder the uptake of them is not happening fast enough.
UK is paying for its governments not introducing proper Covid passports, I think. Potential benefits are (1) driving higher vaccination rates (2) keeping a proportion of infected people out of venues where the disease can easily be passed on (3) enforcing proper tracing if there is an outbreak (4) allowing venues to stay open if further restrictions are required.
Although not directly comparable, I note according to Our World in Data that hospital admissions are running about five times higher in the UK than France, Germany and Italy.
The UK is benefiting from the importance that its government puts on liberty
I'm struggling to think how this takes away your liberty. You don't need to show your passport, but if you don't you can't come in. It is your liberty to choose. I also don't have the liberty to drive on the right side of the road. Do you think I should have the liberty to do so without consequences. You are not allowed to because of the harm you may do to others.
You are not being prevented from driving to A to B.
You are being prevented from participating in normal life.
Nobody is being prevented from participating in normal life.
They're just being asked to show their vaccine ID, which is bad enough and I oppose it on that ground, but lets not get carried away.
Under the proposal, If you are no vaccinated then you can’t go to restaurants, venues, museums etc. You are excluded from society because the government has insisted that you take a medical treatment
Then get vaccinated and you cease to be excluded.
We've all been excluded from society in the recent past. If there needs to be restrictions as a minority who've refused vaccines are overwhelming the NHS then those causing the problem are the only ones who should be excluded, nobody else.
Better to not require vaccine passports. But if they are required, then locking down the unvaccinated is infinitely better than locking down everybody.
The government insisting you take a personal medical treatment is not something I am comfortable with. It up ends the power relationship between the state and the citizen
I completely agree with that.
But the government insisting you stay at home, schools are closed, businesses are closed etc is something I am not comfortable with either.
If the choice is Vaxxports or No Restrictions then I choose No Restrictions. If the choice is Vaxxports or Lockdown then I choose Vaxxports.
Anyone who wishes to remain at home instead of having the vaccine has the right to do that, and is no worse off than if we had a lockdown.
Lockdown is being pushed by obsessives at the moment, not the government
Additionally the principle on lockdown has already been conceded. There is downside to conceding a new power to the government. Powers, once given, are very hard to roll back
Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Florida, Texas are back to fairly normal life. Florida and Sweden were there by 2020.
Large parts of the 'third world' used the drugs whose names get you cancelled or expelled from social media because they're out of patent and cheap.
Ask the BBC and Guardian - the most biased news coverage since Mar 2020 - why they're not publishing fear stories about India daily, as in May 2021.
Because the problem's mostly gone away, although not in Kerala which followed the UK policy and banned cheap generic drugs, just like the NHS.
Anyone not jabbed and not with prior T cell immunity from a previous coronavirus, including some common colds, is likely to have had Delta. If so they have protection for decades, maybe life.
Since the jabbed spread the infection as much as the unjabbed, quite apart from the civil liberties problem please tell me why embryonic social credit passes - so sorry, 'vaxports' - work?
I don’t respond to people who advocate ivermectin
I recall Abraham Lincoln - "Whenever I hear anyone arguing for slavery, I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally."
Strange but true. On social media you can find a fair number of people from the Americas who will argue that slavery was a more or less benign institution.
TL;DR version: Wales is proposing to abolish separate sciences as a GCSE option.
I’m very glad I’m not teaching in Wales…
The sheep botherers are always wrong and stupid.
It help explains their rugby union fans.
So you disapprove of their contribution to Crecy, Agincourt and Poitiers? Not to mention founding the C of E.
Plus they gave us antidisestablishmentarianism
Which is an awesome word.
I have always wondered why antidisestablishmentarianism is considered the longest word, because there must have been folk that opposed the antidisestablishmentarianism movement and hence there must have been an antiantidisestablishmentarianism
I notice that the NHS website has been updated to say that you can only book your booster after 6 months and 1 week.
According to the same website, the nearest walk-in vaccination centre to me in London is in Camden. But in the Lake District it is Blackpool. Which is ridiculous.
Maybe there will be places closer by for vaccinations done by appointment. I do hope so. Because if people have to travel such distances for booster shots no wonder the uptake of them is not happening fast enough.
Would have thought Kendal was open and on both times I took the twins there they were doing walk-ins albeit on the QT.
TL;DR version: Wales is proposing to abolish separate sciences as a GCSE option.
I’m very glad I’m not teaching in Wales…
The sheep botherers are always wrong and stupid.
It help explains their rugby union fans.
So you disapprove of their contribution to Crecy, Agincourt and Poitiers? Not to mention founding the C of E.
Plus they gave us antidisestablishmentarianism
Which is an awesome word.
I have always wondered why antidisestablishmentarianism is considered the longest word, because there must have been folk that opposed the antidisestablishmentarianism movement and hence there must have been an antiantidisestablishmentarianism
UK is paying for its governments not introducing proper Covid passports, I think. Potential benefits are (1) driving higher vaccination rates (2) keeping a proportion of infected people out of venues where the disease can easily be passed on (3) enforcing proper tracing if there is an outbreak (4) allowing venues to stay open if further restrictions are required.
Although not directly comparable, I note according to Our World in Data that hospital admissions are running about five times higher in the UK than France, Germany and Italy.
The UK is benefiting from the importance that its government puts on liberty
I'm struggling to think how this takes away your liberty. You don't need to show your passport, but if you don't you can't come in. It is your liberty to choose. I also don't have the liberty to drive on the right side of the road. Do you think I should have the liberty to do so without consequences. You are not allowed to because of the harm you may do to others.
You are not being prevented from driving to A to B.
You are being prevented from participating in normal life.
Nobody is being prevented from participating in normal life.
They're just being asked to show their vaccine ID, which is bad enough and I oppose it on that ground, but lets not get carried away.
Under the proposal, If you are no vaccinated then you can’t go to restaurants, venues, museums etc. You are excluded from society because the government has insisted that you take a medical treatment
Then get vaccinated and you cease to be excluded.
We've all been excluded from society in the recent past. If there needs to be restrictions as a minority who've refused vaccines are overwhelming the NHS then those causing the problem are the only ones who should be excluded, nobody else.
Better to not require vaccine passports. But if they are required, then locking down the unvaccinated is infinitely better than locking down everybody.
The government insisting you take a personal medical treatment is not something I am comfortable with. It up ends the power relationship between the state and the citizen
Its not insisting that you take the treatment, but it is making it harder for you to have fun etc if you don't...
And the state shouldn’t have that right (as opposed to having the power, which it clearly does, subject to parliamentary approval).
That’s the issue. Government is (indirectly) elected by the people and its authority is derived from the people.
The ability to exclude from society (prison or exile) is the ultimate sanction the state can apply and only for a breach of the criminal law.
Extending that to include “not doing something I think you should do” is a massive extension of state power
Shamima Begum (exiled by the Home Secretary after no court of law has adjudicated on any breach of the criminal law) says hi. Governments do this kind of thing all the time (I am not saying they should).
She exiled herself when she left the country to fight for ISIS. The Home Secretary just closed the gate after she left.
And she's had the chance to have her case go before courts.
She should be tried for the war crimes that she committed.
Indeed. In the country she committed those crimes, not in the UK.
Why? War crimes are considered to be prosecutable by any involved party. For quite a broad definition of "involved party"
I know that there is an interesting reluctance for state prosecutions of non-state actors for war crimes.... Which is another story.
Let the country that she committed the crimes in bring her to justice.
If we bring her back to try her for her crimes then we won't be able to deport her after her sentence. Allowing her back is rewarding her, why should she benefit from her crimes?
Is there a realistic prospect of prosecution where she is? Surely it's more important that justice is done rather than worrying so much about who does it?
Stripping her of her citizenship so she can't go out, commit war crimes, then return back to the UK is a greater justice being done.
Nope, she was brought up in the UK so we shouldn't be trying to pass her on to another country to deal with a problem created in this country.
We're not "passing" her onto anyone else. She voluntarily left, we're just not taking her back and we're not obligated to do so.
The implication of what you are saying here is that anyone who leaves the country can be denied entry upon return, if 'we' don't think it is a good idea. Not a particularly brilliant scenario, for a number of reasons; but most significantly because it turns citizenship in to a privilege that exists at the whims of the government.
TL;DR version: Wales is proposing to abolish separate sciences as a GCSE option.
I’m very glad I’m not teaching in Wales…
Wales is a Banana Republic ... without bananas. It has got poorer and poorer since devolution. It suits Llafur to keep Wales poor.
Most decisions in Wales are taken behind the scenes by influencing Llafur in Corruption Bay, Cardiff.
There is no-one in Llafur who understands even very basic science. There is no Minister for Science. There are two Ministers for Climate Change. They studied law and politics at University.
Llafur are under pressure to improve Welsh standings in International League Tables (the worst out of the 4 countries in the UK).
The easiest way to do that is to remove anything remotely difficult.
There are a large number of pupils for whom the sciences are the easy subjects, and it the arts subjects, with all their ambiguity and subjectivity, which are hard. Having said that, they are also merging English Language with English Literature.
I always thought it was a bit of a joke that you got two English GCSEs for around the same amount of learning as for maths, so I don't have a problem with that change (though, arguably, extra English should be an option like triple award science should be).
As a timetabler I see how much time each subject gets; at my school English is the one with the least time per GCSE and Maths has the most (though about half of them do a further qualification). I suspect the reason for combining the two GCSEs will be to free up more time for something else rather than to equalise the time with Maths.
UK is paying for its governments not introducing proper Covid passports, I think. Potential benefits are (1) driving higher vaccination rates (2) keeping a proportion of infected people out of venues where the disease can easily be passed on (3) enforcing proper tracing if there is an outbreak (4) allowing venues to stay open if further restrictions are required.
Although not directly comparable, I note according to Our World in Data that hospital admissions are running about five times higher in the UK than France, Germany and Italy.
The UK is benefiting from the importance that its government puts on liberty
I'm struggling to think how this takes away your liberty. You don't need to show your passport, but if you don't you can't come in. It is your liberty to choose. I also don't have the liberty to drive on the right side of the road. Do you think I should have the liberty to do so without consequences. You are not allowed to because of the harm you may do to others.
You are not being prevented from driving to A to B.
You are being prevented from participating in normal life.
Nobody is being prevented from participating in normal life.
They're just being asked to show their vaccine ID, which is bad enough and I oppose it on that ground, but lets not get carried away.
Under the proposal, If you are no vaccinated then you can’t go to restaurants, venues, museums etc. You are excluded from society because the government has insisted that you take a medical treatment
Then get vaccinated and you cease to be excluded.
We've all been excluded from society in the recent past. If there needs to be restrictions as a minority who've refused vaccines are overwhelming the NHS then those causing the problem are the only ones who should be excluded, nobody else.
Better to not require vaccine passports. But if they are required, then locking down the unvaccinated is infinitely better than locking down everybody.
The government insisting you take a personal medical treatment is not something I am comfortable with. It up ends the power relationship between the state and the citizen
Its not insisting that you take the treatment, but it is making it harder for you to have fun etc if you don't...
And the state shouldn’t have that right (as opposed to having the power, which it clearly does, subject to parliamentary approval).
That’s the issue. Government is (indirectly) elected by the people and its authority is derived from the people.
The ability to exclude from society (prison or exile) is the ultimate sanction the state can apply and only for a breach of the criminal law.
Extending that to include “not doing something I think you should do” is a massive extension of state power
Shamima Begum (exiled by the Home Secretary after no court of law has adjudicated on any breach of the criminal law) says hi. Governments do this kind of thing all the time (I am not saying they should).
She exiled herself when she left the country to fight for ISIS. The Home Secretary just closed the gate after she left.
And she's had the chance to have her case go before courts.
She should be tried for the war crimes that she committed.
Indeed. In the country she committed those crimes, not in the UK.
Why? War crimes are considered to be prosecutable by any involved party. For quite a broad definition of "involved party"
I know that there is an interesting reluctance for state prosecutions of non-state actors for war crimes.... Which is another story.
Let the country that she committed the crimes in bring her to justice.
If we bring her back to try her for her crimes then we won't be able to deport her after her sentence. Allowing her back is rewarding her, why should she benefit from her crimes?
Is there a realistic prospect of prosecution where she is? Surely it's more important that justice is done rather than worrying so much about who does it?
Stripping her of her citizenship so she can't go out, commit war crimes, then return back to the UK is a greater justice being done.
Nope, she was brought up in the UK so we shouldn't be trying to pass her on to another country to deal with a problem created in this country.
We're not "passing" her onto anyone else. She voluntarily left, we're just not taking her back and we're not obligated to do so.
The implication of what you are saying here is that anyone who leaves the country can be denied entry upon return, if 'we' don't think it is a good idea. Not a particularly brilliant scenario, for a number of reasons; but most significantly because it turns citizenship in to a privilege that exists at the whims of the government.
Its not the implication, its the reality.
But only if they're a danger to this country and only if closing the gate doesn't leave them stateless.
If such people choose to leave the country why should they be allowed back? They made their choice. Actions have consequences.
UK is paying for its governments not introducing proper Covid passports, I think. Potential benefits are (1) driving higher vaccination rates (2) keeping a proportion of infected people out of venues where the disease can easily be passed on (3) enforcing proper tracing if there is an outbreak (4) allowing venues to stay open if further restrictions are required.
Although not directly comparable, I note according to Our World in Data that hospital admissions are running about five times higher in the UK than France, Germany and Italy.
The UK is benefiting from the importance that its government puts on liberty
I'm struggling to think how this takes away your liberty. You don't need to show your passport, but if you don't you can't come in. It is your liberty to choose. I also don't have the liberty to drive on the right side of the road. Do you think I should have the liberty to do so without consequences. You are not allowed to because of the harm you may do to others.
You are not being prevented from driving to A to B.
You are being prevented from participating in normal life.
Nobody is being prevented from participating in normal life.
They're just being asked to show their vaccine ID, which is bad enough and I oppose it on that ground, but lets not get carried away.
Under the proposal, If you are no vaccinated then you can’t go to restaurants, venues, museums etc. You are excluded from society because the government has insisted that you take a medical treatment
Then get vaccinated and you cease to be excluded.
We've all been excluded from society in the recent past. If there needs to be restrictions as a minority who've refused vaccines are overwhelming the NHS then those causing the problem are the only ones who should be excluded, nobody else.
Better to not require vaccine passports. But if they are required, then locking down the unvaccinated is infinitely better than locking down everybody.
The government insisting you take a personal medical treatment is not something I am comfortable with. It up ends the power relationship between the state and the citizen
I completely agree with that.
But the government insisting you stay at home, schools are closed, businesses are closed etc is something I am not comfortable with either.
If the choice is Vaxxports or No Restrictions then I choose No Restrictions. If the choice is Vaxxports or Lockdown then I choose Vaxxports.
Anyone who wishes to remain at home instead of having the vaccine has the right to do that, and is no worse off than if we had a lockdown.
Lockdown is being pushed by obsessives at the moment, not the government
Additionally the principle on lockdown has already been conceded. There is downside to conceding a new power to the government. Powers, once given, are very hard to roll back
Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Florida, Texas are back to fairly normal life. Florida and Sweden were there by 2020.
Large parts of the 'third world' used the drugs whose names get you cancelled or expelled from social media because they're out of patent and cheap.
Ask the BBC and Guardian - the most biased news coverage since Mar 2020 - why they're not publishing fear stories about India daily, as in May 2021.
Because the problem's mostly gone away, although not in Kerala which followed the UK policy and banned cheap generic drugs, just like the NHS.
Anyone not jabbed and not with prior T cell immunity from a previous coronavirus, including some common colds, is likely to have had Delta. If so they have protection for decades, maybe life.
Since the jabbed spread the infection as much as the unjabbed, quite apart from the civil liberties problem please tell me why embryonic social credit passes - so sorry, 'vaxports' - work?
I don’t respond to people who advocate ivermectin
I recall Abraham Lincoln - "Whenever I hear anyone arguing for slavery, I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally."
Strange but true. On social media you can find a fair number of people from the Americas who will argue that slavery was a more or less benign institution.
Nothing changes - Lincoln was thinking of the people in his day who advocated slavery as a positive good. For the slaves......
TL;DR version: Wales is proposing to abolish separate sciences as a GCSE option.
I’m very glad I’m not teaching in Wales…
The sheep botherers are always wrong and stupid.
It help explains their rugby union fans.
So you disapprove of their contribution to Crecy, Agincourt and Poitiers? Not to mention founding the C of E.
Plus they gave us antidisestablishmentarianism
Which is an awesome word.
I have always wondered why antidisestablishmentarianism is considered the longest word, because there must have been folk that opposed the antidisestablishmentarianism movement and hence there must have been an antiantidisestablishmentarianism
Isn't that just disestablishmentarianism?
Perhaps there were centre-grounders, who believed that antidisestablishmentarianists were going a little too far, and that compromise was possible. Hence semiantidisestablishmentarianism.
(Though that would probably be just semidisestablishmentarianism)
UK is paying for its governments not introducing proper Covid passports, I think. Potential benefits are (1) driving higher vaccination rates (2) keeping a proportion of infected people out of venues where the disease can easily be passed on (3) enforcing proper tracing if there is an outbreak (4) allowing venues to stay open if further restrictions are required.
Although not directly comparable, I note according to Our World in Data that hospital admissions are running about five times higher in the UK than France, Germany and Italy.
The UK is benefiting from the importance that its government puts on liberty
I'm struggling to think how this takes away your liberty. You don't need to show your passport, but if you don't you can't come in. It is your liberty to choose. I also don't have the liberty to drive on the right side of the road. Do you think I should have the liberty to do so without consequences. You are not allowed to because of the harm you may do to others.
You are not being prevented from driving to A to B.
You are being prevented from participating in normal life.
Nobody is being prevented from participating in normal life.
They're just being asked to show their vaccine ID, which is bad enough and I oppose it on that ground, but lets not get carried away.
Under the proposal, If you are no vaccinated then you can’t go to restaurants, venues, museums etc. You are excluded from society because the government has insisted that you take a medical treatment
Then get vaccinated and you cease to be excluded.
We've all been excluded from society in the recent past. If there needs to be restrictions as a minority who've refused vaccines are overwhelming the NHS then those causing the problem are the only ones who should be excluded, nobody else.
Better to not require vaccine passports. But if they are required, then locking down the unvaccinated is infinitely better than locking down everybody.
The government insisting you take a personal medical treatment is not something I am comfortable with. It up ends the power relationship between the state and the citizen
Its not insisting that you take the treatment, but it is making it harder for you to have fun etc if you don't...
And the state shouldn’t have that right (as opposed to having the power, which it clearly does, subject to parliamentary approval).
That’s the issue. Government is (indirectly) elected by the people and its authority is derived from the people.
The ability to exclude from society (prison or exile) is the ultimate sanction the state can apply and only for a breach of the criminal law.
Extending that to include “not doing something I think you should do” is a massive extension of state power
Shamima Begum (exiled by the Home Secretary after no court of law has adjudicated on any breach of the criminal law) says hi. Governments do this kind of thing all the time (I am not saying they should).
She exiled herself when she left the country to fight for ISIS. The Home Secretary just closed the gate after she left.
And she's had the chance to have her case go before courts.
She should be tried for the war crimes that she committed.
Indeed. In the country she committed those crimes, not in the UK.
Why? War crimes are considered to be prosecutable by any involved party. For quite a broad definition of "involved party"
I know that there is an interesting reluctance for state prosecutions of non-state actors for war crimes.... Which is another story.
Let the country that she committed the crimes in bring her to justice.
If we bring her back to try her for her crimes then we won't be able to deport her after her sentence. Allowing her back is rewarding her, why should she benefit from her crimes?
Is there a realistic prospect of prosecution where she is? Surely it's more important that justice is done rather than worrying so much about who does it?
Stripping her of her citizenship so she can't go out, commit war crimes, then return back to the UK is a greater justice being done.
Nope, she was brought up in the UK so we shouldn't be trying to pass her on to another country to deal with a problem created in this country.
We're not "passing" her onto anyone else. She voluntarily left, we're just not taking her back and we're not obligated to do so.
The implication of what you are saying here is that anyone who leaves the country can be denied entry upon return, if 'we' don't think it is a good idea. Not a particularly brilliant scenario, for a number of reasons; but most significantly because it turns citizenship in to a privilege that exists at the whims of the government.
Yes and no. You're barking up the right tree, but it's not purely on the whim of government. Government is still subject to the law.
UK is paying for its governments not introducing proper Covid passports, I think. Potential benefits are (1) driving higher vaccination rates (2) keeping a proportion of infected people out of venues where the disease can easily be passed on (3) enforcing proper tracing if there is an outbreak (4) allowing venues to stay open if further restrictions are required.
Although not directly comparable, I note according to Our World in Data that hospital admissions are running about five times higher in the UK than France, Germany and Italy.
The UK is benefiting from the importance that its government puts on liberty
I'm struggling to think how this takes away your liberty. You don't need to show your passport, but if you don't you can't come in. It is your liberty to choose. I also don't have the liberty to drive on the right side of the road. Do you think I should have the liberty to do so without consequences. You are not allowed to because of the harm you may do to others.
You are not being prevented from driving to A to B.
You are being prevented from participating in normal life.
Nobody is being prevented from participating in normal life.
They're just being asked to show their vaccine ID, which is bad enough and I oppose it on that ground, but lets not get carried away.
Under the proposal, If you are no vaccinated then you can’t go to restaurants, venues, museums etc. You are excluded from society because the government has insisted that you take a medical treatment
Then get vaccinated and you cease to be excluded.
We've all been excluded from society in the recent past. If there needs to be restrictions as a minority who've refused vaccines are overwhelming the NHS then those causing the problem are the only ones who should be excluded, nobody else.
Better to not require vaccine passports. But if they are required, then locking down the unvaccinated is infinitely better than locking down everybody.
The government insisting you take a personal medical treatment is not something I am comfortable with. It up ends the power relationship between the state and the citizen
Its not insisting that you take the treatment, but it is making it harder for you to have fun etc if you don't...
And the state shouldn’t have that right (as opposed to having the power, which it clearly does, subject to parliamentary approval).
That’s the issue. Government is (indirectly) elected by the people and its authority is derived from the people.
The ability to exclude from society (prison or exile) is the ultimate sanction the state can apply and only for a breach of the criminal law.
Extending that to include “not doing something I think you should do” is a massive extension of state power
Shamima Begum (exiled by the Home Secretary after no court of law has adjudicated on any breach of the criminal law) says hi. Governments do this kind of thing all the time (I am not saying they should).
She exiled herself when she left the country to fight for ISIS. The Home Secretary just closed the gate after she left.
And she's had the chance to have her case go before courts.
She should be tried for the war crimes that she committed.
Indeed. In the country she committed those crimes, not in the UK.
Why? War crimes are considered to be prosecutable by any involved party. For quite a broad definition of "involved party"
I know that there is an interesting reluctance for state prosecutions of non-state actors for war crimes.... Which is another story.
Let the country that she committed the crimes in bring her to justice.
If we bring her back to try her for her crimes then we won't be able to deport her after her sentence. Allowing her back is rewarding her, why should she benefit from her crimes?
Is there a realistic prospect of prosecution where she is? Surely it's more important that justice is done rather than worrying so much about who does it?
Stripping her of her citizenship so she can't go out, commit war crimes, then return back to the UK is a greater justice being done.
So you aren't really interested in seeing her prosecuted for her alleged crimes?
Not if the price of seeing her prosecuted is allowing her back into this country, no.
She is our fault so she is our problem to deal with.
The home secretary may not like it but she should be here and should be charged with whatever crimes she committed that we can charge her with.
What she isn't is a problem for Bangladesh.
If she was our problem we'd be dealing with her.
We're not, so not our problem.
Only because the Home Secretary, rather dubiously in my opinion, deprived her of her citizenship which allowed the Government to claim she isn't our problem.
UK is paying for its governments not introducing proper Covid passports, I think. Potential benefits are (1) driving higher vaccination rates (2) keeping a proportion of infected people out of venues where the disease can easily be passed on (3) enforcing proper tracing if there is an outbreak (4) allowing venues to stay open if further restrictions are required.
Although not directly comparable, I note according to Our World in Data that hospital admissions are running about five times higher in the UK than France, Germany and Italy.
The UK is benefiting from the importance that its government puts on liberty
I'm struggling to think how this takes away your liberty. You don't need to show your passport, but if you don't you can't come in. It is your liberty to choose. I also don't have the liberty to drive on the right side of the road. Do you think I should have the liberty to do so without consequences. You are not allowed to because of the harm you may do to others.
You are not being prevented from driving to A to B.
You are being prevented from participating in normal life.
Nobody is being prevented from participating in normal life.
They're just being asked to show their vaccine ID, which is bad enough and I oppose it on that ground, but lets not get carried away.
Under the proposal, If you are no vaccinated then you can’t go to restaurants, venues, museums etc. You are excluded from society because the government has insisted that you take a medical treatment
Then get vaccinated and you cease to be excluded.
We've all been excluded from society in the recent past. If there needs to be restrictions as a minority who've refused vaccines are overwhelming the NHS then those causing the problem are the only ones who should be excluded, nobody else.
Better to not require vaccine passports. But if they are required, then locking down the unvaccinated is infinitely better than locking down everybody.
The government insisting you take a personal medical treatment is not something I am comfortable with. It up ends the power relationship between the state and the citizen
Its not insisting that you take the treatment, but it is making it harder for you to have fun etc if you don't...
And the state shouldn’t have that right (as opposed to having the power, which it clearly does, subject to parliamentary approval).
That’s the issue. Government is (indirectly) elected by the people and its authority is derived from the people.
The ability to exclude from society (prison or exile) is the ultimate sanction the state can apply and only for a breach of the criminal law.
Extending that to include “not doing something I think you should do” is a massive extension of state power
Shamima Begum (exiled by the Home Secretary after no court of law has adjudicated on any breach of the criminal law) says hi. Governments do this kind of thing all the time (I am not saying they should).
She exiled herself when she left the country to fight for ISIS. The Home Secretary just closed the gate after she left.
And she's had the chance to have her case go before courts.
She should be tried for the war crimes that she committed.
Indeed. In the country she committed those crimes, not in the UK.
Why? War crimes are considered to be prosecutable by any involved party. For quite a broad definition of "involved party"
I know that there is an interesting reluctance for state prosecutions of non-state actors for war crimes.... Which is another story.
Let the country that she committed the crimes in bring her to justice.
If we bring her back to try her for her crimes then we won't be able to deport her after her sentence. Allowing her back is rewarding her, why should she benefit from her crimes?
Is there a realistic prospect of prosecution where she is? Surely it's more important that justice is done rather than worrying so much about who does it?
Stripping her of her citizenship so she can't go out, commit war crimes, then return back to the UK is a greater justice being done.
So you aren't really interested in seeing her prosecuted for her alleged crimes?
Not if the price of seeing her prosecuted is allowing her back into this country, no.
She is our fault so she is our problem to deal with.
The home secretary may not like it but she should be here and should be charged with whatever crimes she committed that we can charge her with.
What she isn't is a problem for Bangladesh.
If she was our problem we'd be dealing with her.
We're not, so not our problem.
Only because the Home Secretary, rather dubiously in my opinion, deprived her of her citizenship which allowed the Government to claim she isn't our problem.
Not dubiously. In accordance with national and international law.
The country that chose to let her in can now deal with her. Or the other country she has citizenship from.
TL;DR version: Wales is proposing to abolish separate sciences as a GCSE option.
I’m very glad I’m not teaching in Wales…
The sheep botherers are always wrong and stupid.
It help explains their rugby union fans.
So you disapprove of their contribution to Crecy, Agincourt and Poitiers? Not to mention founding the C of E.
Plus they gave us antidisestablishmentarianism
Which is an awesome word.
I have always wondered why antidisestablishmentarianism is considered the longest word, because there must have been folk that opposed the antidisestablishmentarianism movement and hence there must have been an antiantidisestablishmentarianism
If you can find examples of it being used then it would count. I don’t think antidisestablishmentarianism is the longest word in English though: floccinaucinihilipilification has that honour.
TL;DR version: Wales is proposing to abolish separate sciences as a GCSE option.
I’m very glad I’m not teaching in Wales…
The sheep botherers are always wrong and stupid.
It help explains their rugby union fans.
So you disapprove of their contribution to Crecy, Agincourt and Poitiers? Not to mention founding the C of E.
Plus they gave us antidisestablishmentarianism
Which is an awesome word.
I have always wondered why antidisestablishmentarianism is considered the longest word, because there must have been folk that opposed the antidisestablishmentarianism movement and hence there must have been an antiantidisestablishmentarianism
Surely a number of such movements are collectively antidisestablishmentarianisms?
UK is paying for its governments not introducing proper Covid passports, I think. Potential benefits are (1) driving higher vaccination rates (2) keeping a proportion of infected people out of venues where the disease can easily be passed on (3) enforcing proper tracing if there is an outbreak (4) allowing venues to stay open if further restrictions are required.
Although not directly comparable, I note according to Our World in Data that hospital admissions are running about five times higher in the UK than France, Germany and Italy.
The UK is benefiting from the importance that its government puts on liberty
I'm struggling to think how this takes away your liberty. You don't need to show your passport, but if you don't you can't come in. It is your liberty to choose. I also don't have the liberty to drive on the right side of the road. Do you think I should have the liberty to do so without consequences. You are not allowed to because of the harm you may do to others.
You are not being prevented from driving to A to B.
You are being prevented from participating in normal life.
Nobody is being prevented from participating in normal life.
They're just being asked to show their vaccine ID, which is bad enough and I oppose it on that ground, but lets not get carried away.
Under the proposal, If you are no vaccinated then you can’t go to restaurants, venues, museums etc. You are excluded from society because the government has insisted that you take a medical treatment
Then get vaccinated and you cease to be excluded.
We've all been excluded from society in the recent past. If there needs to be restrictions as a minority who've refused vaccines are overwhelming the NHS then those causing the problem are the only ones who should be excluded, nobody else.
Better to not require vaccine passports. But if they are required, then locking down the unvaccinated is infinitely better than locking down everybody.
The government insisting you take a personal medical treatment is not something I am comfortable with. It up ends the power relationship between the state and the citizen
Its not insisting that you take the treatment, but it is making it harder for you to have fun etc if you don't...
And the state shouldn’t have that right (as opposed to having the power, which it clearly does, subject to parliamentary approval).
That’s the issue. Government is (indirectly) elected by the people and its authority is derived from the people.
The ability to exclude from society (prison or exile) is the ultimate sanction the state can apply and only for a breach of the criminal law.
Extending that to include “not doing something I think you should do” is a massive extension of state power
Shamima Begum (exiled by the Home Secretary after no court of law has adjudicated on any breach of the criminal law) says hi. Governments do this kind of thing all the time (I am not saying they should).
She exiled herself when she left the country to fight for ISIS. The Home Secretary just closed the gate after she left.
And she's had the chance to have her case go before courts.
She should be tried for the war crimes that she committed.
Indeed. In the country she committed those crimes, not in the UK.
Why? War crimes are considered to be prosecutable by any involved party. For quite a broad definition of "involved party"
I know that there is an interesting reluctance for state prosecutions of non-state actors for war crimes.... Which is another story.
Let the country that she committed the crimes in bring her to justice.
If we bring her back to try her for her crimes then we won't be able to deport her after her sentence. Allowing her back is rewarding her, why should she benefit from her crimes?
Is there a realistic prospect of prosecution where she is? Surely it's more important that justice is done rather than worrying so much about who does it?
Stripping her of her citizenship so she can't go out, commit war crimes, then return back to the UK is a greater justice being done.
So you aren't really interested in seeing her prosecuted for her alleged crimes?
Not if the price of seeing her prosecuted is allowing her back into this country, no.
She is our fault so she is our problem to deal with.
The home secretary may not like it but she should be here and should be charged with whatever crimes she committed that we can charge her with.
What she isn't is a problem for Bangladesh.
If she was our problem we'd be dealing with her.
We're not, so not our problem.
Only because the Home Secretary, rather dubiously in my opinion, deprived her of her citizenship which allowed the Government to claim she isn't our problem.
Not dubiously. In accordance with national and international law.
The country that chose to let her in can now deal with her. Or the other country she has citizenship from.
I'm not sure you're right about international law there. Correct me if I'm wrong though.
TL;DR version: Wales is proposing to abolish separate sciences as a GCSE option.
I’m very glad I’m not teaching in Wales…
The sheep botherers are always wrong and stupid.
It help explains their rugby union fans.
So you disapprove of their contribution to Crecy, Agincourt and Poitiers? Not to mention founding the C of E.
Plus they gave us antidisestablishmentarianism
Which is an awesome word.
I have always wondered why antidisestablishmentarianism is considered the longest word, because there must have been folk that opposed the antidisestablishmentarianism movement and hence there must have been an antiantidisestablishmentarianism
Isn't that just disestablishmentarianism?
Perhaps there wee centre-grounders, who believed that antidisestablishmentarianists were going a little too far, and that compromise was possible. Hence semiantidisestablishmentarianism.
(Though that would probably be just semidisestablishmentarianism)
I declare antieuropeaneuionreestablishmentarianism (TM) open for business....
Also europeaneuionreestablishmentarianism (TM).....
If you can afford 125 grand for something with bendy pushrods and an utterly miserably 150cfm flow from the antique head design you can probably afford the ULEZ charge on something not shit.
I've just bought a barn find 28,000 mile 1977 E21 323i. It's amazing how slow 40+ year old fast cars are.
Isn't that the one with 5 reverse gears when cornering?
TL;DR version: Wales is proposing to abolish separate sciences as a GCSE option.
I’m very glad I’m not teaching in Wales…
The sheep botherers are always wrong and stupid.
It help explains their rugby union fans.
So you disapprove of their contribution to Crecy, Agincourt and Poitiers? Not to mention founding the C of E.
Plus they gave us antidisestablishmentarianism
Which is an awesome word.
I have always wondered why antidisestablishmentarianism is considered the longest word, because there must have been folk that opposed the antidisestablishmentarianism movement and hence there must have been an antiantidisestablishmentarianism
Isn't that just disestablishmentarianism?
Perhaps there wee centre-grounders, who believed that antidisestablishmentarianists were going a little too far, and that compromise was possible. Hence semiantidisestablishmentarianism.
(Though that would probably be just semidisestablishmentarianism)
I declare antieuropeaneuionreestablishmentarianism (TM) open for business....
Also europeaneuionreestablishmentarianism (TM).....
Are we going to have europeaneuionreestablishmentarianism-oaners (and antieuropeaneuionreestablishmentarianism-eers), too?
We're not "passing" her onto anyone else. She voluntarily left, we're just not taking her back and we're not obligated to do so.
The implication of what you are saying here is that anyone who leaves the country can be denied entry upon return, if 'we' don't think it is a good idea. Not a particularly brilliant scenario, for a number of reasons; but most significantly because it turns citizenship in to a privilege that exists at the whims of the government.
Its not the implication, its the reality.
But only if they're a danger to this country and only if closing the gate doesn't leave them stateless.
If such people choose to leave the country why should they be allowed back? They made their choice. Actions have consequences.
We are much safer if we have terrorists in jail, not free in another country where they can plot whatever attacks they want against the UK.
UK is paying for its governments not introducing proper Covid passports, I think. Potential benefits are (1) driving higher vaccination rates (2) keeping a proportion of infected people out of venues where the disease can easily be passed on (3) enforcing proper tracing if there is an outbreak (4) allowing venues to stay open if further restrictions are required.
Although not directly comparable, I note according to Our World in Data that hospital admissions are running about five times higher in the UK than France, Germany and Italy.
The UK is benefiting from the importance that its government puts on liberty
I'm struggling to think how this takes away your liberty. You don't need to show your passport, but if you don't you can't come in. It is your liberty to choose. I also don't have the liberty to drive on the right side of the road. Do you think I should have the liberty to do so without consequences. You are not allowed to because of the harm you may do to others.
You are not being prevented from driving to A to B.
You are being prevented from participating in normal life.
Nobody is being prevented from participating in normal life.
They're just being asked to show their vaccine ID, which is bad enough and I oppose it on that ground, but lets not get carried away.
Under the proposal, If you are no vaccinated then you can’t go to restaurants, venues, museums etc. You are excluded from society because the government has insisted that you take a medical treatment
Then get vaccinated and you cease to be excluded.
We've all been excluded from society in the recent past. If there needs to be restrictions as a minority who've refused vaccines are overwhelming the NHS then those causing the problem are the only ones who should be excluded, nobody else.
Better to not require vaccine passports. But if they are required, then locking down the unvaccinated is infinitely better than locking down everybody.
The government insisting you take a personal medical treatment is not something I am comfortable with. It up ends the power relationship between the state and the citizen
Its not insisting that you take the treatment, but it is making it harder for you to have fun etc if you don't...
And the state shouldn’t have that right (as opposed to having the power, which it clearly does, subject to parliamentary approval).
That’s the issue. Government is (indirectly) elected by the people and its authority is derived from the people.
The ability to exclude from society (prison or exile) is the ultimate sanction the state can apply and only for a breach of the criminal law.
Extending that to include “not doing something I think you should do” is a massive extension of state power
Shamima Begum (exiled by the Home Secretary after no court of law has adjudicated on any breach of the criminal law) says hi. Governments do this kind of thing all the time (I am not saying they should).
She exiled herself when she left the country to fight for ISIS. The Home Secretary just closed the gate after she left.
And she's had the chance to have her case go before courts.
She should be tried for the war crimes that she committed.
Indeed. In the country she committed those crimes, not in the UK.
Why? War crimes are considered to be prosecutable by any involved party. For quite a broad definition of "involved party"
I know that there is an interesting reluctance for state prosecutions of non-state actors for war crimes.... Which is another story.
Let the country that she committed the crimes in bring her to justice.
If we bring her back to try her for her crimes then we won't be able to deport her after her sentence. Allowing her back is rewarding her, why should she benefit from her crimes?
Is there a realistic prospect of prosecution where she is? Surely it's more important that justice is done rather than worrying so much about who does it?
Stripping her of her citizenship so she can't go out, commit war crimes, then return back to the UK is a greater justice being done.
Nope, she was brought up in the UK so we shouldn't be trying to pass her on to another country to deal with a problem created in this country.
We're not "passing" her onto anyone else. She voluntarily left, we're just not taking her back and we're not obligated to do so.
The implication of what you are saying here is that anyone who leaves the country can be denied entry upon return, if 'we' don't think it is a good idea. Not a particularly brilliant scenario, for a number of reasons; but most significantly because it turns citizenship in to a privilege that exists at the whims of the government.
Yes and no. You're barking up the right tree, but it's not purely on the whim of government. Government is still subject to the law.
At the moment, although Patel and Raab seem to think it shouldn't be.
TL;DR version: Wales is proposing to abolish separate sciences as a GCSE option.
I’m very glad I’m not teaching in Wales…
The sheep botherers are always wrong and stupid.
It help explains their rugby union fans.
So you disapprove of their contribution to Crecy, Agincourt and Poitiers? Not to mention founding the C of E.
Plus they gave us antidisestablishmentarianism
Which is an awesome word.
I have always wondered why antidisestablishmentarianism is considered the longest word, because there must have been folk that opposed the antidisestablishmentarianism movement and hence there must have been an antiantidisestablishmentarianism
And before you thought of that, it was a time of preantiantidisestablishmentarianism...
UK is paying for its governments not introducing proper Covid passports, I think. Potential benefits are (1) driving higher vaccination rates (2) keeping a proportion of infected people out of venues where the disease can easily be passed on (3) enforcing proper tracing if there is an outbreak (4) allowing venues to stay open if further restrictions are required.
Although not directly comparable, I note according to Our World in Data that hospital admissions are running about five times higher in the UK than France, Germany and Italy.
The UK is benefiting from the importance that its government puts on liberty
I'm struggling to think how this takes away your liberty. You don't need to show your passport, but if you don't you can't come in. It is your liberty to choose. I also don't have the liberty to drive on the right side of the road. Do you think I should have the liberty to do so without consequences. You are not allowed to because of the harm you may do to others.
You are not being prevented from driving to A to B.
You are being prevented from participating in normal life.
Nobody is being prevented from participating in normal life.
They're just being asked to show their vaccine ID, which is bad enough and I oppose it on that ground, but lets not get carried away.
Under the proposal, If you are no vaccinated then you can’t go to restaurants, venues, museums etc. You are excluded from society because the government has insisted that you take a medical treatment
Then get vaccinated and you cease to be excluded.
We've all been excluded from society in the recent past. If there needs to be restrictions as a minority who've refused vaccines are overwhelming the NHS then those causing the problem are the only ones who should be excluded, nobody else.
Better to not require vaccine passports. But if they are required, then locking down the unvaccinated is infinitely better than locking down everybody.
The government insisting you take a personal medical treatment is not something I am comfortable with. It up ends the power relationship between the state and the citizen
Its not insisting that you take the treatment, but it is making it harder for you to have fun etc if you don't...
And the state shouldn’t have that right (as opposed to having the power, which it clearly does, subject to parliamentary approval).
That’s the issue. Government is (indirectly) elected by the people and its authority is derived from the people.
The ability to exclude from society (prison or exile) is the ultimate sanction the state can apply and only for a breach of the criminal law.
Extending that to include “not doing something I think you should do” is a massive extension of state power
Shamima Begum (exiled by the Home Secretary after no court of law has adjudicated on any breach of the criminal law) says hi. Governments do this kind of thing all the time (I am not saying they should).
She exiled herself when she left the country to fight for ISIS. The Home Secretary just closed the gate after she left.
And she's had the chance to have her case go before courts.
She should be tried for the war crimes that she committed.
Indeed. In the country she committed those crimes, not in the UK.
Why? War crimes are considered to be prosecutable by any involved party. For quite a broad definition of "involved party"
I know that there is an interesting reluctance for state prosecutions of non-state actors for war crimes.... Which is another story.
Let the country that she committed the crimes in bring her to justice.
If we bring her back to try her for her crimes then we won't be able to deport her after her sentence. Allowing her back is rewarding her, why should she benefit from her crimes?
Is there a realistic prospect of prosecution where she is? Surely it's more important that justice is done rather than worrying so much about who does it?
Stripping her of her citizenship so she can't go out, commit war crimes, then return back to the UK is a greater justice being done.
So you aren't really interested in seeing her prosecuted for her alleged crimes?
Not if the price of seeing her prosecuted is allowing her back into this country, no.
She is our fault so she is our problem to deal with.
The home secretary may not like it but she should be here and should be charged with whatever crimes she committed that we can charge her with.
What she isn't is a problem for Bangladesh.
If she was our problem we'd be dealing with her.
We're not, so not our problem.
Only because the Home Secretary, rather dubiously in my opinion, deprived her of her citizenship which allowed the Government to claim she isn't our problem.
Not dubiously. In accordance with national and international law.
The country that chose to let her in can now deal with her. Or the other country she has citizenship from.
If you can afford 125 grand for something with bendy pushrods and an utterly miserably 150cfm flow from the antique head design you can probably afford the ULEZ charge on something not shit.
I've just bought a barn find 28,000 mile 1977 E21 323i. It's amazing how slow 40+ year old fast cars are.
Isn't that the one with 5 reverse gears when cornering?
Curiously, I have driven a vehicle where 6th gear, in reverse, is completely reasonable.
Comments
All people lie sometimes, in that politicians (is that what you mean by a "political"?) are people, they may be no worse than other types of people. Some politicians, like some people generally, are almost certainly pathological liars. I would consider Boris Johnson such which IS a problem, and is a problem because it enables and emboldens people who have your puerile perspective that "all politicals" are the same. They are not. The majority in most parties (and I have met quite a few) are decent people who are trying to make a difference. In that sense they need our support and respect, unless they give us serious reason not to.
" “Medical treatment” means all procedures for diagnosing, or treating any physical or mental illness, infirmity or defect"
(From HMRC's Employment Income Manual)
Actually, seeing that vaccinations are preventative rather than treatment, it could even be argued by a lawyer that LFTs are "medical treatment" whilst vaccinations are not.
But the government insisting you stay at home, schools are closed, businesses are closed etc is something I am not comfortable with either.
If the choice is Vaxxports or No Restrictions then I choose No Restrictions.
If the choice is Vaxxports or Lockdown then I choose Vaxxports.
Anyone who wishes to remain at home instead of having the vaccine has the right to do that, and is no worse off than if we had a lockdown.
But it’s all dancing
The only thing I landed on was the pavement.
And aplogies that I wasn't there to break your fall
That’s the issue. Government is (indirectly) elected by the people and its authority is derived from the people.
The ability to exclude from society (prison or exile) is the ultimate sanction the state can apply and only for a breach of the criminal law.
Extending that to include “not doing something I think you should do” is a massive extension of state power
So whilst I am against the policy, it really is not a substantial change to the current situation or a burden on people. The bigger impact might be on businesses, some of which are surviving at the margins at the moment and hoping to get through to better times.
If it were expanded to pubs and restaurants that would be a bigger hit, and I would be even more against that, but other countries are coping with it and not turning into North Korea.
Implication is understood with reference to the word choices made by the speaker. The choice to use "now" signifies something of the mental state of the speaker. What could "now" be doing there OTHER THAN implying a change?
Of course, this is understood by everyone who isn't trying to dishonestly defend a dishonest implication.
Which of course inspires fun ways to travel in style, without giving the Mayor the pleasure of taking money from you, such as a restomod 1970s Range Rover:
https://www.pistonheads.com/news/ph-britishcars/ulez-reborn-range-rover-classic-launched/44843
Additionally the principle on lockdown has already been conceded. There is downside to conceding a new power to the government. Powers, once given, are very hard to roll back
But if a lockdown is on the cards, then the Overton Window has shifted so far that a vaxxport is a lesser power than a full lockdown.
And she's had the chance to have her case go before courts.
I've just bought a barn find 28,000 mile 1977 E21 323i. It's amazing how slow 40+ year old fast cars are.
I know that there is an interesting reluctance for state prosecutions of non-state actors for war crimes.... Which is another story.
TL;DR version: Wales is proposing to abolish separate sciences as a GCSE option.
I’m very glad I’m not teaching in Wales…
This is why it is dangerous to start disapplying universal rights when the person in question is someone we don't like. One day the person being deprived of their liberty might be you.
If we bring her back to try her for her crimes then we won't be able to deport her after her sentence. Allowing her back is rewarding her, why should she benefit from her crimes?
It help explains their rugby union fans.
Large parts of the 'third world' used the drugs whose names get you cancelled or expelled from social media because they're out of patent and cheap.
Ask the BBC and Guardian - the most biased news coverage since Mar 2020 - why they're not publishing fear stories about India daily, as in May 2021.
Because the problem's mostly gone away, although not in Kerala which followed the UK policy and banned cheap generic drugs, just like the NHS.
Sites for further information ... https://globalcovidsummit.org/ ad nauseam but there are 100s.
Anyone not jabbed and not with prior T cell immunity from a previous coronavirus, including some common colds, is likely to have had Delta. If so they have protection for decades, maybe life.
Since the jabbed spread the infection as much as the unjabbed, quite apart from the civil liberties problem please tell me why embryonic social credit passes - so sorry, 'vaxports' - work?
Most decisions in Wales are taken behind the scenes by influencing Llafur in Corruption Bay, Cardiff.
There is no-one in Llafur who understands even very basic science. There is no Minister for Science. There are two Ministers for Climate Change. They studied law and politics at University.
Llafur are under pressure to improve Welsh standings in International League Tables (the worst out of the 4 countries in the UK).
The easiest way to do that is to remove anything remotely difficult.
Which is an awesome word.
The home secretary may not like it but she should be here and should be charged with whatever crimes she committed that we can charge her with.
What she isn't is a problem for Bangladesh.
We're not, so not our problem.
My 85yo father-in-law got Covid a few weeks ago. He lost his smell and had a runny nose and that was about it. Yesterday he got what we believe is Norovirus (vomiting bug) and spent most of yesterday being sick. He couldn't even sit up in bed without help then but is more mobile today and able to get himself to the loo and back. So from his experience, double-jabbed Covid is much milder than Norovirus.
(My google skills may have let me down)
Having to stay in some dusty hell hole for the rest of her days might be regarded as a kind of natural justice by some, but I would prefer a more lawful kind.
According to the same website, the nearest walk-in vaccination centre to me in London is in Camden. But in the Lake District it is Blackpool. Which is ridiculous.
Maybe there will be places closer by for vaccinations done by appointment. I do hope so. Because if people have to travel such distances for booster shots no wonder the uptake of them is not happening fast enough.
But only if they're a danger to this country and only if closing the gate doesn't leave them stateless.
If such people choose to leave the country why should they be allowed back? They made their choice. Actions have consequences.
(Though that would probably be just semidisestablishmentarianism)
The country that chose to let her in can now deal with her. Or the other country she has citizenship from.
Also europeaneuionreestablishmentarianism (TM).....
Build Back Shitter.