@Blue_since_1990 said:
What this thread really shows is no matter what party you prefer, we are in a right bloody mess with these so called politicians. Maybe it is time to draw a close to party politics altogether.
Anarchy?
There's a really good documentary called Accidental Anarchist, well worth seeking out.
@Blue_since_1990 said:
From the start there should have been a cross party COVID team, including the devolved governments, who made decisions and U.K. wide plans based on scientific fact.
I think you are right but I would disagree that at this stage the science is quite so much a ‘fact’. Probably closer to ’a predicted range of outcomes’. Scientists do not all agree on lots of things and there will be a range of views to be considered, alongside other factors such as the effect on mental health, other illnesses and the economy. A grown up debate that has been sadly lacking over the last two years.
When exercising choice leads to so many intensive care beds being occupied by unvaccinated people you have to question the wisdom of that particular freedom. If people were being forced to have jabs, that’s a whole different political ball game.
Yeah, I'm not saying you should force people, but someone in his position should be strongly encouraging imo. 'Freedom of choice' is relevant with a lot of things, but it kind of falls down as an argument when that choice could affect the health of the rest of us and prolong the current situation.
I always find this very bizarre...'"I don't think it's ever happened before in my lifetime, where we are told what we have to do, so they all have a choice."
Not sure about everyone else, but this is my first global pandemic and I am very old.
He seemed to speak with a fairly sound command of the english language. Do you mean that you usually agree more readily with what he says?
Not necessarily, but this didn't seem to fit in with his general stance on things. He's quite 'activist', for want of a better word, on things like environmental issues.
He seemed to speak with a fairly sound command of the english language. Do you mean that you usually agree more readily with what he says?
Not necessarily, but this didn't seem to fit in with his general stance on things. He's quite 'activist', for want of a better word, on things like environmental issues.
You can tell times have changed when a chap advocating for the rights of the individual is seen as a bit conservative.
He seemed to speak with a fairly sound command of the english language. Do you mean that you usually agree more readily with what he says?
Not necessarily, but this didn't seem to fit in with his general stance on things. He's quite 'activist', for want of a better word, on things like environmental issues.
You can tell times have changed when a chap advocating for the rights of the individual is seen as a bit conservative.
Is it? Right= small government, left= bigger govt generally.
He seemed to speak with a fairly sound command of the english language. Do you mean that you usually agree more readily with what he says?
Not necessarily, but this didn't seem to fit in with his general stance on things. He's quite 'activist', for want of a better word, on things like environmental issues.
You can tell times have changed when a chap advocating for the rights of the individual is seen as a bit conservative.
Is it? Right= small government, left= bigger govt generally.
I agree. By those measures, it's a more right position, esp. if you factor in consideration of authoritarian leftist regimes of the 20th century. But my small "c" was deliberate in that there is a collectivist strain to much modern "progressive" thought that is at odds with the consideration of the essential rights of the individual that one might historically have seen as synonymous with that position. That such a perspective is seen as unprogressive now is that to which I was referring.
Not that it's ever that simple but right wing governments do tend to wang on about Law and Order a lot whilst supposedly wanting no government interference in a range of things that don't suit them.
@StrongestTeam said:
Not that it's ever that simple but right wing governments do tend to wang on about Law and Order a lot whilst supposedly wanting no government interference in a range of things that don't suit them.
@DJWYC14 said:
So one is free from COVID if they go through the entrance but head down the other end and you're so at risk fans can't be allowed. Makes total sense.
If you are going to have open land borders between areas with different regulations, then anomalies at borders are inevitable. There are pubs that straddle the border with bars that close at different times due to licensing hours differences.
Chester seems to be one of those anomaly situations. Have to say if I was their business manager, I would have done exactly what they did. Wing it, hope no-one noticed, get as much income in as possible and then claim oversight and promise not to do it again if and when challenged by authority.
@DevC said:
If you are going to have open land borders between areas with different regulations, then anomalies at borders are inevitable. There are pubs that straddle the border with bars that close at different times due to licensing hours differences.
Chester seems to be one of those anomaly situations. Have to say if I was their business manager, I would have done exactly what they did. Wing it, hope no-one noticed, get as much income in as possible and then claim oversight and promise not to do it again if and when challenged by authority.
You'd have trouble arguing if they sacked you after a points deduction then.
Comments
Interesting, will have to check that out.
Can you imagine the Daily Mail headlines if Starmer had set the world on fire??
He's cleverly avoided it by not having any policies that far-right, billionaire, newspaper owners would object to. Or any policies really.
The British people are tired of experts @mooneyman
Hopefully they will be tired of clowns as come the next general election @Wendoverman!
I think you are right but I would disagree that at this stage the science is quite so much a ‘fact’. Probably closer to ’a predicted range of outcomes’. Scientists do not all agree on lots of things and there will be a range of views to be considered, alongside other factors such as the effect on mental health, other illnesses and the economy. A grown up debate that has been sadly lacking over the last two years.
Sadly lacking?
Should Boris get Omicron done by January will we all get kicked out of our usual seats when Sunderland come to town again?
Disappointingly neutral stance from Russell Martin with regards to vaccination. He usually speaks so well. https://www.joe.co.uk/sport/swansea-manager-russell-martin-says-he-is-pro-choice-not-anti-vaccine-308064
When exercising choice leads to so many intensive care beds being occupied by unvaccinated people you have to question the wisdom of that particular freedom. If people were being forced to have jabs, that’s a whole different political ball game.
Yeah, I'm not saying you should force people, but someone in his position should be strongly encouraging imo. 'Freedom of choice' is relevant with a lot of things, but it kind of falls down as an argument when that choice could affect the health of the rest of us and prolong the current situation.
I always find this very bizarre...'"I don't think it's ever happened before in my lifetime, where we are told what we have to do, so they all have a choice."
Not sure about everyone else, but this is my first global pandemic and I am very old.
He seemed to speak with a fairly sound command of the english language. Do you mean that you usually agree more readily with what he says?
Not necessarily, but this didn't seem to fit in with his general stance on things. He's quite 'activist', for want of a better word, on things like environmental issues.
You can tell times have changed when a chap advocating for the rights of the individual is seen as a bit conservative.
Is it? Right= small government, left= bigger govt generally.
I agree. By those measures, it's a more right position, esp. if you factor in consideration of authoritarian leftist regimes of the 20th century. But my small "c" was deliberate in that there is a collectivist strain to much modern "progressive" thought that is at odds with the consideration of the essential rights of the individual that one might historically have seen as synonymous with that position. That such a perspective is seen as unprogressive now is that to which I was referring.
Not that it's ever that simple but right wing governments do tend to wang on about Law and Order a lot whilst supposedly wanting no government interference in a range of things that don't suit them.
Don't disagree profoundly.
No more restrictions before the new year, so hopefully we can at least get to Ipswich ?
You'd have thought they'd have asked the question immediately when Wales brought restrictions in wouldn't you?
Thought Chester's ground being in Wales was one of those facts everyone knew.
It shouldn't have been a surprise to their management tbh but who knows
According to ITV News the entrance is in England
No football is played in the entrance though.
So one is free from COVID if they go through the entrance but head down the other end and you're so at risk fans can't be allowed. Makes total sense.
That's enough mumbo jumbo thank you
If you are going to have open land borders between areas with different regulations, then anomalies at borders are inevitable. There are pubs that straddle the border with bars that close at different times due to licensing hours differences.
Chester seems to be one of those anomaly situations. Have to say if I was their business manager, I would have done exactly what they did. Wing it, hope no-one noticed, get as much income in as possible and then claim oversight and promise not to do it again if and when challenged by authority.
You'd have trouble arguing if they sacked you after a points deduction then.