UKC

Vaccine passports (II) - is there any longer a justification?

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Thread auto-archived as it is too large
 Hardonicus 22 Nov 2021

The last thread gotarchived due to length when it seems like the discussion was just getting going...

Some people making the point that there is no forced vaccination but that vax passports represent a 'choice'. Other may say that is not a 'choice' and is in fact a enforced restriction of individual freedom. Effectively producing an apartheid society.

Clearly once a vax passport is in place then it can be applied more widely over time - mission creep is inevitable (supermarkets, swimming pools etc.). How well do we trust our leaders? Remember the Parliamentary fight to ensure Covid emergency legislation had to be re-voted on every 6 months - possibly this was the last honourable action by the House...

Maybe a referendum is the way forward - we all know how well that goes...

Post edited at 09:57
33
In reply to Hardonicus:

> Some people making the point that there is no forced vaccination but that vax passports represent a 'choice'. Other may say that is not a 'choice' and is in fact a enforced restriction of individual freedom. Effectively producing an apartheid society.

Apartheid was bad because it was based on an attribute that people don't choose - their skin colour.

I don't think therefore that term is a sensible comparison with people choosing to exclude themselves from certain things because of not doing or having something.  It's a lot closer to the fact that not owning some form of Internet connected device near enough excludes one from flying with easyJet or Ryanair, for instance*, or not having a debit card excludes one from certain shops/pubs/restaurants.

* Or perhaps better, not having a passport excludes one from going abroad.  Or not doing a driving test means you can't drive a car.  Etc.

Post edited at 10:24
4
 ThunderCat 22 Nov 2021
In reply to Hardonicus:

I do cringe a bit when I hear 'apartheid' in this context.  Takes away from the sheer awfulness and injustice of where it was originally coined.

Just my two penn'orth

 john arran 22 Nov 2021
In reply to Hardonicus:

> Clearly once a vax passport is in place then it can be applied more widely over time - mission creep is inevitable (supermarkets, swimming pools etc.). How well do we trust our leaders?

I wouldn't trust the UK leaders as far as I could throw them, but remember that they have been actively resisting the introduction of vaccine passports and vaccine requirements, when medical opinion would appear to consider them valuable.

You can't really blame the government for wanting to do things above and beyond what they already clearly don't want to do.

 mondite 22 Nov 2021
In reply to Hardonicus:

> Effectively producing an apartheid society.

Anyone who uses "apartheid" with respect to this clearly needs a history lesson.

> Clearly once a vax passport is in place then it can be applied more widely over time - mission creep is inevitable (supermarkets, swimming pools etc.).

Considering the loons we have as leaders I am not sure how this works in your mind?

As for the body is sacred approach. Do you apply this idea to all vaccines past and present such as smallpox?

Its also worth noting that worldwide the covid passports have been either proof of vaccination of proof of recent negative test.

2
 Hardonicus 22 Nov 2021
In reply to Neil Williams:

You viewpoint may be equally unequivocal. Being coerced through removal of privileges because you refuse to introduce a substance to one's bodies that has negligible (but not zero) risk associated with it is a step over an ethical line not present in your example.

26
 Hardonicus 22 Nov 2021
In reply to mondite:

The body is sacred approach is key from an ethical viewpoint though isn't it?

Let's consider a thought experiment:

Currently the chance of death from a Covid 19 is low. Very, very low but NOT zero.

What probability of vaccine induced death would make the imposition of vaccination passports unethical? 0.1%, 1%, 5%.

23
In reply to Hardonicus:

It's not removal of privileges. Everyone had to stay at home. without vaccines, everyone would now have to stay at home. Vaccines allow us to end the stay at home. You prefer stay at home to getting vaccinated? Fine. Stay at home

7
 mondite 22 Nov 2021
In reply to Hardonicus:

> The body is sacred approach is key from an ethical viewpoint though isn't it?

Not really if you are offering alternatives such as the proof of a recent negative test. I am not sure why you continue to ignore this is the standard approach where vaccine passports are proposed?

> What probability of vaccine induced death would make the imposition of vaccination passports unethical? 0.1%, 1%, 5%.

We could, of course, reverse this thought experiment and go for Smallpox or the black death levels of lethalness. At which point would you think a vaccine passport isnt a bad thing?

1
 Offwidth 22 Nov 2021
In reply to Hardonicus:

To me it's a reasonable straightforward public health problem. When hospitals are really struggling, and we need levers to stop that, we face restrictions either way. Most of the 'ethical' arguments I see are plain bogus or made up strawmen. The relevant ethics are around questions like "is it fairer to restrict everyone a bit more because some people insist on following a selfish path based on misinformation?". I'd say yes for essential food shops but no for non essentials.

The pandemic has exposed major fault lines in society and government. Too many governments pretended to follow science and in some extreme cases said they were following science when doing the exact opposite (like Boris in September and December 2020). Social Media has become a blight on society with misinformation rife, and exploited ruthlessly by russian and rich US libertarian destabilisers who want inconvenient western democracy and truth heavily clipped back.

Post edited at 10:59
1
 fred99 22 Nov 2021
In reply to Hardonicus:

I'm getting more and more angry with anti-vaxxers, to the point where I'm seriously worried that I (and others) may get violent if in a position where I (or others) are surrounded by them.

Why, you may ask ?

Simple, in the past smokers would regularly, when asked to stop blowing smoke (or indeed holding their lit cigarettes in such a position that the smoke wafted over a neighbouring table) in a pub or such like, actually deliberately blow smoke into peoples faces, claiming that they were being generous by giving us non-smokers free cigarettes. This led to a number of stand-offs. It also led to a change in the law.

Anti-vaxxers are no different in my view, worse possibly, as unlike with smoke, we cannot see where that which they exhale is going, but will (on occasion) actually feel it hitting our faces.

If someone doesn't want to be protected from harm from one source or another that's their prerogative, but they do not have the right to inflict whatever they have or believe on others.

The above is a additional matter to the harm that infected anti-vaxxers are doing to the NHS, and, by extension, all of us. Unfortunately some of you have yet to get this into your ***** skulls.

Post edited at 11:14
9
 timjones 22 Nov 2021
In reply to Longsufferingropeholder:

> It's not removal of privileges. Everyone had to stay at home. without vaccines, everyone would now have to stay at home. Vaccines allow us to end the stay at home. You prefer stay at home to getting vaccinated? Fine. Stay at home

You appear to have got it arse about face.

The requirement to stay at home was the removal of a very basic freedom. Should we be required to jump through any hoops in order to retore that freedom?

20
In reply to fred99:

Indeed. I feel sorry for those who triage intensive care who might have to decide who has the bed, or a cancel others operations, they then have to speak to the patient and relatives explaining why, where it's a covid patient filling a bed it's statistically more likely they are unvaccinated.

3
 TomD89 22 Nov 2021
In reply to fred99:

> I'm getting more and more angry with anti-vaxxers, to the point where I'm seriously worried that I (and others) may get violent if in a position where I (or others) are surrounded by them.

Here we go. We had to reach the violent attacking of the unpersons eventually. I'd take unvaccinated company over people who think they can impose their will on others through violent means. It's not like those injured by your barbaric actions wouldn't end up in A&E and clogging the system anyway. To attack someone would also mean getting unusually close to them, so you're only increasing your chances of infection by your own foolish actions.

Go ahead a be a violent thug and see where it gets you. Were you thumping people who were smoking in your vicinity too? To start harming people for opting not to take harm reduction measure is absurd. 

The name calling, labels and swearing are a good indicator of hysteria. I'm also surprised you have so little faith in the vaccines you want others to take? Surely you have a good level of protection regardless of others decisions? 

Maybe you should get a test for anti-bodies to put your mind at ease and let the anger go. Or perhaps go to the pub less? It's not great for your health if your down there drinking often, and will only disinhibit your violent tendencies.

Post edited at 11:51
36
 wintertree 22 Nov 2021
In reply to timjones:

> The requirement to stay at home was the removal of a very basic freedom.

It was, and it was a necessary requirement to prevent half a million people dying in the space of a few months without any access to medical care.

The loss of civilian life was comparable to that of the entirety of WW2, but mostly compressed in to two brief periods of a few months each.  That is the scale of the problem and very basic freedoms were limited in the war as well.  Extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures.

Of course, if there had not been so much push back against accepting control measures short of lockdown, we would have had less death, less economic damage and less total time in lockdown. 

> Should we be required to jump through any hoops in order to retore that freedom?

Most freedom is restored since the periods of lockdown, and the main reasons it can be restored without precipitating the total collapse of healthcare care because people are willing to "jump through hoops" in order to control the healthcare-quaking potential of the virus by accepting relatively minor limitations.  This is not done without end - as I hope you can see we continue to move towards better times, and we continue to do so as a society ​​​​​​​much to my relief.

4
 Harry Jarvis 22 Nov 2021
In reply to TomD89:

> Here we go. We had to reach the violent attacking of the unpersons eventually. I'd take unvaccinated company over people who think they can impose their will on others through violent means. It's not like those injured by your barbaric actions wouldn't end up in A&E and clogging the system anyway. To attack someone would also mean getting unusually close to them, so you're only increasing your chances of infection by your own foolish actions.

You may not be aware that fredd99 is often full of ludicrous bluster and the chances of him enacting any of his nonsense are remote. However, on the subject of violence, it is the case that most of the COVID-related violence has come from those who oppose restrictions and who oppose vaccinations. These are the dangerous ones, with little regard for the consequences of their actions. 

4
 fred99 22 Nov 2021
In reply to TomD89:

> Here we go. We had to reach the violent attacking of the unpersons eventually. I'd take unvaccinated company over people who think they can impose their will on others through violent means.

Have you seen the news - it's ANTI-VAXXERS who are being violent. Look at what's happening in Holland for example.

I despair of you and your like. If (or when) you catch Covid (or have a climbing accident) - and can't get an ambulance to even get you to hospital because they're already blocked by other cases - then you might understand the situation - and I mean might, because I'm sure you'd find something or someone else to blame.

Then, if you survive, you might change your mind, like so many on their death-beds. But I doubt it.

8
 fred99 22 Nov 2021
In reply to Harry Jarvis:

> You may not be aware that fredd99 is often full of ludicrous bluster and the chances of him enacting any of his nonsense are remote. 

What I am doing in these cases is pointing out that such matters are getting me annoyed/angry. This being the case many others most likely have similar feelings.

I can control my anger, but there are those who cannot. Indeed using words is better than bottling it up, as not doing so raises the likelihood of a physical reaction.

However even those with a lot of self control have a breaking point, and some people tend to keep pushing their views/actions against others until that point is reached and then passed. These idiots shouldn't then be surprised when "the worm turns".

At present we have a number of idiots whose actions are putting the very lives of others at risk, so I foresee the point when a person (or persons) who have lost someone dear to them breaks, and then all hell will be let loose - unfortunately not on the real culprits, but on whoever happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

2
In reply to TomD89:

You might have noticed it's the unvaccinated smashing places up?

5
In reply to TomD89:

Fancy going on a climbing trip to Aus. A visit to Arapilies for example?

Fat chance unless you are vaccinated.

You stay in the Uk if you want to........

3
 TomD89 22 Nov 2021
In reply to neilh:

> Fancy going on a climbing trip to Aus. A visit to Arapilies for example?

> Fat chance unless you are vaccinated.

> You stay in the Uk if you want to........

I thought we were talking about the logical and ethical implications of imposing vaccine passports and other measures this winter? Not whether any given individual on here would like an Australian holiday.

I would hope we'd all expect a bit more justification for measures than "well you can't have a holiday unless you do what you're told". 

19
In reply to TomD89:

> I thought we were talking about the logical and ethical implications of imposing vaccine passports and other measures this winter? Not whether any given individual on here would like an Australian holiday.

Why would an indoor venue be treated differently to a plane? 

1
In reply to summo:

Depends on the nature of the indoor venue.  In a plane you spend an extended period very close to the same people.  Whereas a large, well-ventilated supermarket is not much different from being outside, with all contact very fleeting.

2
In reply to TomD89:

the choice of being vaccinated / unvaccinated is being withdrawn from countries you may want to visit. 

Your choice in the end. you have the “freedom” to decide. 
 

2
In reply to Neil Williams:

> Depends on the nature of the indoor venue.  In a plane you spend an extended period very close to the same people.  Whereas a large, well-ventilated supermarket is not much different from being outside, with all contact very fleeting.

I'd agree, plus people shop for food it's essential. But a trip out to a bar, restaurant, night club, theatre, cinema, sport venue..?

 jimtitt 22 Nov 2021
In reply to Neil Williams:

> Depends on the nature of the indoor venue.  In a plane you spend an extended period very close to the same people.  Whereas a large, well-ventilated supermarket is not much different from being outside, with all contact very fleeting.

Unless of course you happen to work there........

 Mike Stretford 22 Nov 2021
In reply to Hardonicus:

> Maybe a referendum is the way forward - we all know how well that goes...

Why? Are there any plans for vaccine passports in England? To do what?

In reply to jimtitt:

> Unless of course you happen to work there........

Contact with any given individual is still fleeting, but that would be an argument for staff to be issued with FFP2/FFP3 masks rather than relying on the actions of others.

3
In reply to summo:

> I'd agree, plus people shop for food it's essential. But a trip out to a bar, restaurant, night club, theatre, cinema, sport venue..?

Depends on the venue.  A theatre or cinema is very similar to a plane when full, bars and restaurants vary, sport venues are often outdoors, nightclubs certainly.

 mondite 22 Nov 2021
In reply to Neil Williams:

> sport venues are often outdoors

It depends on where the pinch points are eg Cheltenham last year although "outdoor" had large numbers of people in the pubs/hospitality areas and on the public transport to get there.

Wembley this year had similar issues.

 jimtitt 22 Nov 2021
In reply to Neil Williams:

> Contact with any given individual is still fleeting, but that would be an argument for staff to be issued with FFP2/FFP3 masks rather than relying on the actions of others.

Or require customers be vaccinated, freedom of choice works both ways.

1
In reply to Neil Williams:

> Depends on the venue.  A theatre or cinema is very similar to a plane when full, bars and restaurants vary, sport venues are often outdoors, nightclubs certainly.

But it's non essential. By banning the unvaccinated, it reduces the risk they'll catch covid in crowded venues and become an unnecessary burden on the nhs in peak winter. Like seat belt wearing, saving idiots from themselves. 

2
In reply to jimtitt:

> Or require customers be vaccinated, freedom of choice works both ways.

I cannot support this for essential food retail.  For optional things like bars, restaurants and events, I do support it IF a same-day negative test is an acceptable alternative (edited, sorry).

Post edited at 15:27
1
In reply to summo:

> But it's non essential. By banning the unvaccinated, it reduces the risk they'll catch covid in crowded venues and become an unnecessary burden on the nhs in peak winter. Like seat belt wearing, saving idiots from themselves. 

True.

1
In reply to Neil Williams:

At what tax cost to the rest of us. How many same day negative tests do you want us to pay for? 5/10/20/40.

It costs money. I tell you what £10 a time. Would you still be ok with that?

2
In reply to neilh:

> At what tax cost to the rest of us. How many same day negative tests do you want us to pay for? 5/10/20/40.

> It costs money. I tell you what £10 a time. Would you still be ok with that?

I didn't say the tests had to be free.  Personally, I'd be happy that they were chargeable unless a doctor had advised the person not to be vaccinated on medical grounds, in which case they absolutely should be free.  The no-cost option is the vaccine provided you can have it.

Post edited at 16:00
 elsewhere 22 Nov 2021
In reply to Neil Williams:

> Contact with any given individual is still fleeting, but that would be an argument for staff to be issued with FFP2/FFP3 masks rather than relying on the actions of others.

Need to be a bit careful about fleeting. Proximity between people may be fleeting. Virus in the air might not be.

1
 jimtitt 22 Nov 2021
In reply to Neil Williams:

> I cannot support this for essential food retail.  For optional things like bars, restaurants and events, I do support it IF a same-day negative test is an acceptable alternative (edited, sorry).

To put things in context it really doesn't matter what you support, you, Wintertree, Offwidth, TiE et al have no influence or power, same as myself.

However the subject of vaccinated, cured, tested etc regarding essential shopping has been decided in much of Germany by those with the final say, the judiciary. While few have as yet applied any restrictions legally the shops are allowed to apply any restrictions they wish, other avenues to essential purchases exist (online shopping and all German areas have a volounteer shopping service for those who cannot anyway travel). The problem is shopkeepers have an overriding duty to protect their employees as do all employers. The anti-vaxxers have no overriding right ergo anyone can legally refuse them access.

 wercat 22 Nov 2021
In reply to fred99:

The Anti Vaxxers are also costing us access to timely and effective health and emergency services as they are effectively mounting a denial of service attack - Reckless Bed Blockers

If we'd simply assumed a duty and responsibility to others to be vaccinated when invited then all of these stupid rights assertions would have been avoided, as well as care workers feeling they had been singled out for harsh measures

This is a Monumental Neo Liberal blunder

Being invited to roll up your sleeve is not comparable with the kind of treatment my grandfather's generation had from the state - 3 brothers sent to the Western Front all in the DLI , 2 died (one at the Somme) and one came home badly wounded from shellfire (I  knew him as a family member till I was about 20.

I know full well of people being forced to volunteer by white feather women (another relative I knew as a kid did this to young men) and asking people to volunteer their arms for the jab isn't anything like what that generation had to do.  Just look at the spirit of Eyam compared to the Anti Vaxxists

I feel the fury and anger appropriate to these idiots.

Post edited at 16:30
6
In reply to Neil Williams:

> Apartheid was bad because it was based on an attribute that people don't choose - their skin colour.

New user here.  About to post RE some climbing venues, but this thread has caught my interest/the vehemence against those who have doubt RE 'passports'/ramifications therein strikes me as almost cult-like, therefore I'll reply to a few posts/points prior to asking the climbing-related questions.

'Apartheid' is a definition - determined by segregation, not race.  

The important point RE defining apartheid is segregation.

By definition, vaccine passports are a form of apartheid. 

Apartheid is hugely negative as it is a form of segregation.  Race as the determining factor of this segregation is not the determining factor RE the nature of segregation defined as apartheid.

Race-specific issues would be dealt with under the Equality Act 2010 (protected characteristics).

It should also be noted that data concerning health is a protected characteristic (see paragraph 1 from Art.9 of the GDPR).  The freedom with which the general public/users of this forum share their personal medical information as a badge of belonging to a particular 'group' (i.e used as an indicator of political position RE current happenings) strikes me as rather silly/not fully understanding the nature of why protected characteristics are classed as such (i.e historical violence against groups of individuals by the state (e.g Holocaust), hence part of the European basis for the development of the GDPR in the first instance).

The general public/members of this forum should be able to discuss an issue/position without sacrificing data relating to protected characteristics.  Trying to group individuals on the basis of their medical status is no different from grouping by race - and is equally as vapid/cult-like.  

Margaret Singer's '6 conditions for thought reform' is very revealing RE current proceedings.

24
 ThunderCat 22 Nov 2021
In reply to silverbirchiness:

> New user here.  About to post RE some climbing venues, but this thread has caught my interest/the vehemence against those who have doubt RE 'passports'/ramifications therein strikes me as almost cult-like, therefore I'll reply to a few posts/points prior to asking the climbing-related questions.

> 'Apartheid' is a definition - determined by segregation, not race.  

> The important point RE defining apartheid is segregation.

> By definition, vaccine passports are a form of apartheid. 

> Apartheid is hugely negative as it is a form of segregation.  Race as the determining factor of this segregation is not the determining factor RE the nature of segregation defined as apartheid.

> Race-specific issues would be dealt with under the Equality Act 2010 (protected characteristics).

> It should also be noted that data concerning health is a protected characteristic (see paragraph 1 from Art.9 of the GDPR).  The freedom with which the general public/users of this forum share their personal medical information as a badge of belonging to a particular 'group' (i.e used as an indicator of political position RE current happenings) strikes me as rather silly/not fully understanding the nature of why protected characteristics are classed as such (i.e historical violence against groups of individuals by the state (e.g Holocaust), hence part of the European basis for the development of the GDPR in the first instance).

> The general public/members of this forum should be able to discuss an issue/position without sacrificing data relating to protected characteristics.  Trying to group individuals on the basis of their medical status is no different from grouping by race - and is equally as vapid/cult-like.  

> Margaret Singer's '6 conditions for thought reform' is very revealing RE current proceedings.

But in reality "apartheid" has moved away from it's etymological roots of just meaning "apart-ness", to now encompass everything it represented in the 'bad old times' - absolute segregation of where you could live, where you could work, whether you could vote, marry, sleep with, where you could be educated, where you eat, sleep, drink, defecate, wash, walk, receive fair treatment by the police and the court system from the moment your were born to the moment you died based purely on the whim of an unelected minority and their classification of you by your skin tone.

To use it in the vaccine argument seems cheap, lazy, needlessly emotive and pretty offensive.

Bit like screaming poverty because you can't afford a 60 inch plasma TV.

Anyhoo, I promised myself I wouldn't get drawn into this, I'm supposed to be working...

2
In reply to silverbirchiness:

> New user here.  About to post RE some climbing venues....

Yeah, of course you were. 

2
In reply to ThunderCat:

> But in reality "apartheid" has moved away from it's etymological roots of just meaning "apart-ness"

...Therefore it no longer has validity?  I believe a court of law would disagree.

'Vaccine' has also recently moved away from its etymological roots with its recent re-definition - as has 'pandemic'.  On the above basis, do we bin our new definitions of 'vaccine' and 'pandemic'?

> to now encompass everything it represented in the 'bad old times' - absolute segregation of where you could live, where you could work, whether you could vote, marry, sleep with, where you could be educated, where you eat, sleep, drink, defecate, wash, walk, receive fair treatment by the police and the court system from the moment your were born to the moment you died based purely on the whim of an unelected minority and their classification of you by your skin tone.

Segregation and 'absolute segregation' are not synonymous.  Legally, 'vaccine passports' are a form of apartheid as they establish a form of segregation within society - irrespective of race.

18
In reply to summo:

> Yeah, of course you were. 

Yes.  I'm looking into winter climbing, and was going to ask some questions RE Cruachan/crags, as I can't find much info in the guidebooks.  

What you are doing is called an 'ad hominem' - is this how the forum responds to those it disagrees with if they address an issue/topic in a manner you don't like?

I believe I'm free to post on any topic within this forum.

19
 ThunderCat 22 Nov 2021
In reply to silverbirchiness:

Words have power.  There are a several words which if you went purely by their etymological roots could be argued to be reasonable and acceptable to use in everyday conversation, however with the cultural / negative weight they sometimes carry, we are careful about how we apply for them.

In my opinion, "apartheid"  is one such word.

But it's just my opinion.  It's my choice not to use it if I feel it cheapens it.  

Likewise it's your to use as you see fit.

Peace out.

1
 Lankyman 22 Nov 2021
In reply to silverbirchiness:

> Yes.  I'm looking into winter climbing, and was going to ask some questions RE Cruachan/crags, as I can't find much info in the guidebooks.

> I believe I'm free to post on any topic within this forum.

You are, why don't you?

1
 Lankyman 22 Nov 2021

In reply to Rotti:

> Second version of the thread and still no one has mentioned natural acquired immunity from a prior Covid infection?

What antivax nonsense are you about to push?

4
In reply to silverbirchiness:

No. You'd be surprised how many people magically just join and never mention climbing but have strong views related to covid... then promptly disappear, before another new user name appears using exactly the same argument and phrases. All coincidence of course. 

Edit. Looking forward to your thoughts on climbing. 

Post edited at 18:49
1
In reply to Hardonicus:

I'm curious how many individuals posting on this forum (on this topic) have read the Coronavirus Act 2020 in full?  Not really much excuse, as it has been available in the public domain for almost 2 years.  

I'd personally like to know if those I'm addrressing are aware of the legal ramifications of the Act/are informed at all.  There is another thread/set of threads ('covid plotting') dealing with the issue from a position that has the appearance of statistical merit - but I haven't seen anything dealing with the legal issue.  

As such:

Users in Scotland would do well to familiarise themselves with Schedule 14 of the Act - this is the Schedule whereby the government granted itself the legal right to suspend review of death certificates RE cause of death. 

In other words: what is classed as a 'covid death' may not be a 'covid death' - hence the statistical thread on this forum could be - at source - flawed, as the auditing process RE death/attribution was frozen/suspended during the course of the formation of the statistics relating to 'covid deaths'.

Schedule 19 is also very troubling - and worth a read - particularly section 4, part 2.  Those taking a vaccine on the basis of maintaining their job/possessions would do well to know that this particular section grants the government power to seize all possessions (including property/business) of an individual.  Schedule 19 is more troubling than apartheid, as it grants the government power to revoke the concept of 'ownership' in its entirety - and grants them power to hold any individual in an unspecified location for an unspecified time.   Whilst forum users may agree with this on the basis of an ethical/moral disagreement in relation to position RE vaccine, these powers have far-reaching implications - and should have been the very basis of conversation over the past 18+ months. 

Schedule 19 is the section of the act the government wants to retain post-expiry of the Act.  

I'd suggest forum users looking to reply to the above read the Coronavirus Act 2020 in full first.  What I see are individuals arguing from a personal perspective with no understanding of the underlying legal ramifications of the positions promulgated by their own government - or what those positions even are in the first instance.

24

In reply to Rotti:

> Second version of the thread and still no one has mentioned natural acquired immunity from a prior Covid infection?

It’s still a dirty word to many. Arguably we’re the best placed in the world because of prior natural infection.

So far we’ve give about 15m doses of the good stuff this summer by my estimation- and people wonder why we aren’t going into exponential growth like the rest of Europe.

 ThunderCat 22 Nov 2021
In reply to summo:

Damn.  Did I respond to a bloody sock puppet?  Too bloody trusting, I am

2
 wintertree 22 Nov 2021
In reply to ThunderCat:

> Damn.  Did I respond to a bloody sock puppet?  Too bloody trusting, I am

Two for the price of one…

I was just thinking it’d normally at turning points like this where “Rom” suddenly appears.

1
 Doug 22 Nov 2021
In reply to silverbirchiness:

So where's the post re winter climbing ?

 Lankyman 22 Nov 2021
In reply to silverbirchiness:

> I'm curious how many individuals posting on this forum (on this topic) have read the Coronavirus Act 2020 in full?  Not really much excuse, as it has been available in the public domain for almost 2 years.  

> I'd personally like to know if those I'm addrressing are aware of the legal ramifications of the Act/are informed at all.  There is another thread/set of threads ('covid plotting') dealing with the issue from a position that has the appearance of statistical merit - but I haven't seen anything dealing with the legal issue.  

> As such:

> Users in Scotland would do well to familiarise themselves with Schedule 14 of the Act - this is the Schedule whereby the government granted itself the legal right to suspend review of death certificates RE cause of death. 

> In other words: what is classed as a 'covid death' may not be a 'covid death' - hence the statistical thread on this forum could be - at source - flawed, as the auditing process RE death/attribution was frozen/suspended during the course of the formation of the statistics relating to 'covid deaths'.

> Schedule 19 is also very troubling - and worth a read - particularly section 4, part 2.  Those taking a vaccine on the basis of maintaining their job/possessions would do well to know that this particular section grants the government power to seize all possessions (including property/business) of an individual.  Schedule 19 is more troubling than apartheid, as it grants the government power to revoke the concept of 'ownership' in its entirety - and grants them power to hold any individual in an unspecified location for an unspecified time.   Whilst forum users may agree with this on the basis of an ethical/moral disagreement in relation to position RE vaccine, these powers have far-reaching implications - and should have been the very basis of conversation over the past 18+ months. 

> Schedule 19 is the section of the act the government wants to retain post-expiry of the Act.  

> I'd suggest forum users looking to reply to the above read the Coronavirus Act 2020 in full first.  What I see are individuals arguing from a personal perspective with no understanding of the underlying legal ramifications of the positions promulgated by their own government - or what those positions even are in the first instance.

After all of that shyte aren't you just all aquiver to ask us about the fantastic climbing on Cruachan?

1
In reply to summo:

> No. You'd be surprised how many people magically just join and never mention climbing but have strong views related to covid... then promptly disappear, before another new user name appears using exactly the same argument and phrases. All coincidence of course. 

> Edit. Looking forward to your thoughts on climbing. 

Not much in guidebooks RE Cruachan's crags in winter (at least, not in the guidebook I have) - but I noticed a few users seem very familiar with the crag (erick?), so I'll possibly PM them regarding info, as the crag appears to come into condition fairly quickly. 

However, very revealing that someone who joins the forum and posts information of legal validity is attacked with an ad hominem by a number of individuals on the basis of their posts disagreeing with the moral stance of their own position...

This is cult-like and does not bode well RE the 'climbing community' - if this forum is to be considered an indicator of it.

20
 wintertree 22 Nov 2021
In reply to Doug:

> So where's the post re winter climbing ?

I’ve been really happy to see the rise in posts to the winter forum here; not my cup of tea at all but it’s great that so many people are going to get out on the ice and snow real soon now.

I await their post, too…. The last such one we had didn’t stand up to much careful deconstruction…

 ThunderCat 22 Nov 2021
In reply to silverbirchiness:

> This is cult-like and does not bode well RE the 'climbing community' - if this forum is to be considered an indicator of it.

It's all nipple exposures and secret handshakes on here.  You must know that from previous postings

One of us...One of us...One of us..

 Lankyman 22 Nov 2021
In reply to silverbirchiness:

> Not much in guidebooks RE Cruachan's crags in winter (at least, not in the guidebook I have) - but I noticed a few users seem very familiar with the crag (erick?), so I'll possibly PM them regarding info, as the crag appears to come into condition fairly quickly. 

Yes, you do that

> However, very revealing that someone who joins the forum and posts information of legal validity is attacked with an ad hominem by a number of individuals on the basis of their posts disagreeing with the moral stance of their own position...

'Legal validity' - what sort of pompous drivel is that?

> This is cult-like and does not bode well RE the 'climbing community' - if this forum is to be considered an indicator of it.

You know where the door is then (the one marked 'flounce')

 wintertree 22 Nov 2021
In reply to Hardonicus:

See what you’ve done?  The sock puppets are multiplying exponentially.

What’s the collective noun for sock puppets?  A “Tufton” of sock puppets?  A “Barrington” of sock puppets?  An embarrassment of sock puppets?

1
 Lankyman 22 Nov 2021

In reply to Rotti:

> Also lots of talk about penalising the un-vaccinated, but not a single mention about the elephant in the room:

> Bearing this in mind, do the same people who wish to exclude the un-vaccinated from society (seemingly even if they have natural immunity from prior infection) also wish to exclude the overweight who have eaten unhealthy food or made no effort to excersize?

> Appreciate this is a controversial topic, but just trying to understand the mindset behind the thinking of those seemingly happy to divide society, and once we have opened up this can of worms, where as a society would we draw the line on this?

No you're not

1
 ThunderCat 22 Nov 2021
In reply to wintertree:

> See what you’ve done?  The sock puppets are multiplying exponentially.

> What’s the collective noun for sock puppets?  A “Tufton” of sock puppets?  A “Barrington” of sock puppets?  An embarrassment of sock puppets?

What were those little fluffy monsters called that invaded the Starship Enterprise and then spread like wildfire?  Tribbles?  A Tribble of sock puppets ?

In reply to silverbirchiness:

O hai

> You know where the door is then (the one marked 'flounce')

You are speaking on behalf of the entire forum?  

All cilmbers are equal, but some are more equal than others?

I'd hazard a guess that many forum users disagree with the position stated on this forum, yet choose to remain quiet due to vocal individuals such as those who have attacked my posts since my joining all of 1 hour ago.  

Absolutely ridiculous way to speak to an individual/fellow climber who joins a forum and posts on a very important issue to everyone at present.

All this forum is going to become with such an attitude is an echo chamber - and all you'll do is turn climbers away from interacting with other climbers, what with your attempts at insult if they disagree with you.

25
 Maggot 22 Nov 2021
In reply to wintertree:

> See what you’ve done?  The sock puppets are multiplying exponentially.

> What’s the collective noun for sock puppets?  A “Tufton” of sock puppets?  A “Barrington” of sock puppets?  An embarrassment of sock puppets?

A drawerfull.

In reply to Rotti:

You could have waited a bit more than five minutes between registering your two new accounts (353177, 353178) before posting on the same thread. At least you didn't reply to yourself, I guess.

[well, that poster didn't last long...]

In reply to ThunderCat:

> What were those little fluffy monsters called that invaded the Starship Enterprise and then spread like wildfire?  Tribbles?  A Tribble of sock puppets ?

Read Schedules 14 and 19 of the Coronavirus Act.  

The entire 'covid plotting' threads are potentially entirely moot, in light of Schedule 14.

There is a clear attempt here to pull a thread into chaos due to the posting of a viewpoint disagreeing with the attributed zeitgeist (what everyone 'thinks' everyone else is thinking - no more).  Again - this in itself is very revealing RE those who claim to speak on behalf of 'the climbing community'.

I'm shocked that in the space of a few posts, I have a small harem attempting to pull a thread into chaos on the basis of those posts.  This is not mature, but - as I have said - cult-like.   

Are certain posters scared that the general public will read the likes of Schedule 14/19, and maybe reconsider their position thereafter?  

20
In reply to Doug:

> So where's the post re winter climbing ?

Don't you mean "the post RE winter climbing" ?

 ThunderCat 22 Nov 2021
In reply to silverbirchiness:

> Read Schedules 14 and 19 of the Coronavirus Act.  

> The entire 'covid plotting' threads are potentially entirely moot, in light of Schedule 14.

> There is a clear attempt here to pull a thread into chaos due to the posting of a viewpoint disagreeing with the attributed zeitgeist (what everyone 'thinks' everyone else is thinking - no more).  Again - this in itself is very revealing RE those who claim to speak on behalf of 'the climbing community'.

> I'm shocked that in the space of a few posts, I have a small harem attempting to pull a thread into chaos on the basis of those posts.  This is not mature, but - as I have said - cult-like.   

> Are certain posters scared that the general public will read the likes of Schedule 14/19, and maybe reconsider their position thereafter?  

I've never been described as part of a harem before.  Although I have been described as a cult.  At least it sounded like that.

Thundercat (as has been pointed out previously) is an anagram of "thread cu*t".  It's not why I chose the username though, I chose it because I used the love the Thundercats

 wintertree 22 Nov 2021
In reply to ThunderCat:

> Thundercat (as has been pointed out previously) is an anagram of "thread cu*t".  It's not why I chose the username though, I chose it because I used the love the Thundercats

Have you followed the rebooted She Ra and the continuation of He Man?  High concept stuff vs the originals…

 Lankyman 22 Nov 2021
In reply to silverbirchiness:

> You are speaking on behalf of the entire forum?  

Yes. I am the High Omniscience of the Sock Puppet United Kingdom (aka S.P.U.N.K.)

> All cilmbers are equal, but some are more equal than others?

What's a 'cilmber'?

> I'd hazard a guess that many forum users disagree with the position stated on this forum, yet choose to remain quiet due to vocal individuals such as those who have attacked my posts since my joining all of 1 hour ago.  

Getting the message - quick learner

> Absolutely ridiculous way to speak to an individual/fellow climber who joins a forum and posts on a very important issue to everyone at present.

But you're not a climber

> All this forum is going to become with such an attitude is an echo chamber - and all you'll do is turn climbers away from interacting with other climbers, what with your attempts at insult if they disagree with you.

Yes! Result! Now, off you go

Post edited at 19:33
1
 ThunderCat 22 Nov 2021
In reply to wintertree:

> Have you followed the rebooted She Ra and the continuation of He Man?  High concept stuff vs the originals…

I have not! (but I shall).  I'm currently waiting for a very large and rubbish database to churn crunch a very large set of numbers so I need to kill some time.

 wintertree 22 Nov 2021
In reply to ThunderCat:

> I have not! (but I shall).  I'm currently waiting for a very large and rubbish database to churn crunch a very large set of numbers so I need to kill some time.

She Ra in particular I thought was excellent, although people prone to shouting “woke” and “snowflake” should probably give it a miss.

Sarah Michelle Gellar and Mark Hamil in He-Man.  Star power.

In reply to silverbirchiness:

> This is cult-like and does not bode well RE the 'climbing community' - if this forum is to be considered an indicator of it.

Bye then. 

1
 Lankyman 22 Nov 2021
In reply to Doug:

> So where's the post re winter climbing ?

It's just appeared. I suppose we'd better stop baiting the sock puppet and treat him as a Real Climber now

 deepsoup 22 Nov 2021
In reply to Lankyman:

> But you're not a climber

I wouldn't be so sure about that.  RomTheBear posted about climbing quite often before he took up full-time sock puppetry.

 Hardonicus 22 Nov 2021
In reply to silverbirchiness:

Any thoughts on the wideranging retrobolting of Yorkshire limestone?

In reply to Hardonicus:

Reasons why the general public may have doubt RE current government proceedings/data presented as justification of actions:

1)  Redefinition of 'Vaccine'

2)  Redefinition of 'Pandemic'

3)  Removal of audit processes RE cause of death (see Schedule 14 of the Coronavirus Act 2020), therefore potentially rendering all stats moot

4)  Loose classification criteria RE 'covid-19' - see ICD U07.2

5)  Issues RE false positives etc

6)  Schedule 19 of the Coronavirus Act 2020 - which gives the government power to seize and/or destroy all your possessions, including businesses.  Not to mention this schedule also giving the government permission to send you for 're-education' - or move you to an unspecified location for an unspecified duration

7)  Creation of an apartheid state on what are potentially false statistics (due to the aforementioned)

8)  Demonization of those who raise concerns - as seen in media, and this very thread

etc.

So - yes - Hardonicus is more than justified in raising concerns.

I repeat that the apparently beloved 'covid plotting' threads could be entirely moot, due to the government's removal of audit processes RE cause of death/review of death certificates.

19
 wintertree 22 Nov 2021
In reply to silverbirchiness:

You should do some research, I found this video invaluable.

youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ&

1
 timjones 22 Nov 2021
In reply to Lankyman:

Antivax nonsense or a simple observation that some countries recognise recovery from infection as being as valid as vaccination?

 Lankyman 22 Nov 2021
In reply to silverbirchiness:

> Reasons why the general public may have doubt RE current government proceedings/data presented as justification of actions:

> 1)  Redefinition of 'Vaccine'

> 2)  Redefinition of 'Pandemic'

> 3)  Removal of audit processes RE cause of death (see Schedule 14 of the Coronavirus Act 2020), therefore potentially rendering all stats moot

> 4)  Loose classification criteria RE 'covid-19' - see ICD U07.2

> 5)  Issues RE false positives etc

> 6)  Schedule 19 of the Coronavirus Act 2020 - which gives the government power to seize and/or destroy all your possessions, including businesses.  Not to mention this schedule also giving the government permission to send you for 're-education' - or move you to an unspecified location for an unspecified duration

> 7)  Creation of an apartheid state on what are potentially false statistics (due to the aforementioned)

> 8)  Demonization of those who raise concerns - as seen in media, and this very thread

> etc.

> So - yes - Hardonicus is more than justified in raising concerns.

> I repeat that the apparently beloved 'covid plotting' threads could be entirely moot, due to the government's removal of audit processes RE cause of death/review of death certificates.

Oh come off it! Have you been to Peppa Pig World?

1
 Lankyman 22 Nov 2021
In reply to timjones:

> Antivax nonsense or a simple observation that some countries recognise recovery from infection as being as valid as vaccination?

No. Or yes, maybe.

 deepsoup 22 Nov 2021
In reply to wintertree:

Crikely, that's old-school!  We never really did that here though, I think you'll find this is more appropriate: youtube.com/watch?v=s49X4JtqOjg&

1
 Moacs 22 Nov 2021
In reply to silverbirchiness:

> It should also be noted that data concerning health is a protected characteristic (see paragraph 1 from Art.9 of the GDPR).  The freedom with which the general public/users of this forum share their personal medical information as a badge of belonging to a particular 'group' (i.e used as an indicator of political position RE current happenings) strikes me as rather silly/not fully understanding the nature of why protected characteristics are classed as such (i.e historical violence against groups of individuals by the state (e.g Holocaust), hence part of the European basis for the development of the GDPR in the first instance).

Can I claim Godwin?

Oh, and what a lot of twaddle.

1
 off-duty 22 Nov 2021
In reply to silverbirchiness:

> New user here.  About to post RE some climbing venues, but this thread has caught my interest/the vehemence against those who have doubt RE 'passports'/ramifications therein strikes me as almost cult-like, therefore I'll reply to a few posts/points prior to asking the climbing-related questions.

> 'Apartheid' is a definition - determined by segregation, not race.  

> The important point RE defining apartheid is segregation.

> By definition, vaccine passports are a form of apartheid. 

> Apartheid is hugely negative as it is a form of segregation.  Race as the determining factor of this segregation is not the determining factor RE the nature of segregation defined as apartheid.

> Race-specific issues would be dealt with under the Equality Act 2010 (protected characteristics).

> It should also be noted that data concerning health is a protected characteristic (see paragraph 1 from Art.9 of the GDPR).  The freedom with which the general public/users of this forum share their personal medical information as a badge of belonging to a particular 'group' (i.e used as an indicator of political position RE current happenings) strikes me as rather silly/not fully understanding the nature of why protected characteristics are classed as such (i.e historical violence against groups of individuals by the state (e.g Holocaust), hence part of the European basis for the development of the GDPR in the first instance).

> The general public/members of this forum should be able to discuss an issue/position without sacrificing data relating to protected characteristics.  Trying to group individuals on the basis of their medical status is no different from grouping by race - and is equally as vapid/cult-like.  

> Margaret Singer's '6 conditions for thought reform' is very revealing RE current proceedings.

That's a pretty verbose way of trying to shoehorn a right to refuse vaccination due to being a f@@kwit with a gibberish interpretation of  the fact that data about health can be a protected characteristic.

It's reminiscent of anti-maskers at their finest. 

"You cannot ask me about my vaccination status, it's against the law."

(Edit for clarity - actually with anti maskers it was whining along the lines of "But, but I'm exempt  and you can't ask me about my exemption" )

Utter nonsense. If you want an exemption from certain rules governing the rest of society you certainly can be asked to justify it.  

Cross reference with drink driving legislation and exemptions, seat belt exemptions, etc etc.

Post edited at 19:57
1
In reply to silverbirchiness:

> The entire 'covid plotting' threads are potentially entirely moot, in light of Schedule 14.

For a "new user", you've been catching up with old threads very quickly...

In reply to Moacs:

> Oh, and what a lot of twaddle.

No - precisely the opposite.

Feel free to elaborate on what was inaccurate/lacking.

6
 wintertree 22 Nov 2021
In reply to Moacs:

> Oh, and what a lot of twaddle.

Then he twaddled away.  Twaddle twaddle.  Until the very next day.

youtube.com/watch?v=MtN1YnoL46Q&

3
In reply to off-duty:

> That's a pretty verbose way of trying to shoehorn a right to refuse vaccination due to being a f@@kwit with a gibberish interpretation of  the fact that data about health can be a protected characteristic.

No - it's not that it 'can' be a protected characteristic - but that it IS a protected characteristic. 

> "You cannot ask me about my vaccination status, it's against the law."

No - misunderstanding. 

The individual has to consent to the processing of data concerning health i.e if they choose to share said data, they are consenting.  ...But they don't have to.

Can I ask if your wife has vaginal thrush?  Legally there is no difference i.e both are attempts to process data concerning health.

> Utter nonsense. If you want an exemption from certain rules governing the rest of society you certainly can be asked to justify it.  

See above.  not utter nonsense, but law.

> Cross reference with drink driving legislation and exemptions, seat belt exemptions, etc etc.

We don't require a medical intervention with unknown long-term outcomes to wear a seatbelt.

11
 Lankyman 22 Nov 2021
In reply to silverbirchiness:

> No - precisely the opposite.

> Feel free to elaborate on what was inaccurate/lacking.

What's lacking (in buckets full) is any reason to believe a brand new poster who kicks off with a load of antivax cr@p and then tries to get some 'credibility' by putting up a winter climbing post. You must think we're eight year-olds.

 off-duty 22 Nov 2021
In reply to silverbirchiness:

> Reasons why the general public may have doubt RE current government proceedings/data presented as justification of actions:

> 1)  Redefinition of 'Vaccine'

> 2)  Redefinition of 'Pandemic'

> 3)  Removal of audit processes RE cause of death (see Schedule 14 of the Coronavirus Act 2020), therefore potentially rendering all stats moot

> 4)  Loose classification criteria RE 'covid-19' - see ICD U07.2

> 5)  Issues RE false positives etc

> 6)  Schedule 19 of the Coronavirus Act 2020 - which gives the government power to seize and/or destroy all your possessions, including businesses.  Not to mention this schedule also giving the government permission to send you for 're-education' - or move you to an unspecified location for an unspecified duration

> 7)  Creation of an apartheid state on what are potentially false statistics (due to the aforementioned)

> 8)  Demonization of those who raise concerns - as seen in media, and this very thread

> etc.

> So - yes - Hardonicus is more than justified in raising concerns.

> I repeat that the apparently beloved 'covid plotting' threads could be entirely moot, due to the government's removal of audit processes RE cause of death/review of death certificates.

Ah. Sorry I even engaged. You aren't a good faith poster, you are an anti-vax conspiracist nut job.

And to be blunt, people like you literally have blood on your hands. You are undoubtedly smart enough to know better, and yet in one of the greatest threats humanity has faced you have picked the side of the virus. Charitably one could say it's through fear and uncertainty, uncharitably it's through utter lack of conscience and a desperate desire to be contrary.

And yes, this is a sustained ad hominem, your points are laughable.

Post edited at 20:04
2
 off-duty 22 Nov 2021
In reply to silverbirchiness:

> No - it's not that it 'can' be a protected characteristic - but that it IS a protected characteristic. 

Yes it is a protected characteristic.

> No - misunderstanding. 

No. You literally don't understand the shite you are spouting. This is the same tosh the anti maskers used to spout. 

You don't want to wear a mask, ultimately that exemption would be examined. 

> The individual has to consent to the processing of data concerning health i.e if they choose to share said data, they are consenting.  ...But they don't have to.

> Can I ask if your wife has vaginal thrush?  Legally there is no difference i.e both are attempts to process data concerning health.

> See above.  not utter nonsense, but law.

Total whataboutery rubbish. You aren't even making sense. 

> We don't require a medical intervention with unknown long-term outcomes to wear a seatbelt.

The principle of being required to disclose medical data in order to demonstrate an exemption to the law is absolutely identical. 

See also: drink driving etc etc.

It's worse than Freeman on the land gibberish, at least that nonsense is only really used in the UK to try and argue about speeding tickets.

Post edited at 20:12
In reply to Lankyman:

> What's lacking (in buckets full) is any reason to believe a brand new poster

I've posted factual, accurate information e.g:

*  Reference to Art.9 of the GDPR/its importance RE protected characteristics - of which data concerning health is classed as

*  Reference to the Equality Act 2010

*  Reference to the coronavirus Act 2020 - particularly Schedules 14 and 19

etc.

I see no such data from those who are promoting an attack.

In fact, I'd question if any forum user has read the Coronavirus Act 2020 in full.

> who kicks off with a load of antivax cr@p

Referencing the government's own laws/clauses is antivax?  

Categorising people in such a way is not helping your case - it is only demonstrating narrow-mindedness, and an inability to discuss the issued I've raised thus far.

> and then tries to get some 'credibility' by putting up a winter climbing post.

...No winning with those who have their mind made up.  I stated in my first post that I was going to post RE winter climbing - which has since happened - yet the goalposts are still moving as you sense someone who disagrees with you, yet can legally justify their position with reference to particular clauses etc

I could care less RE credibility if you feel that you represent the climbing community.

> You must think we're eight year-olds.

Yourself/those who are in your camp?  No, I think more of 8-year olds.

And I'm sure if on a hill, you'd have more respect when addressing me.

19
 ThunderCat 22 Nov 2021
In reply to silverbirchiness:

"Are you a regular forum user with another name, who has registered several new usernames quite recently and is now posting similar messages under each of those new aliases (and maybe using the winter climbing post to give yourself credibility)" is the question a lot of people would like you to confirm or deny...

 off-duty 22 Nov 2021
In reply to silverbirchiness:

> I've posted factual, accurate information e.g:

> *  Reference to Art.9 of the GDPR/its importance RE protected characteristics - of which data concerning health is classed as

> *  Reference to the Equality Act 2010

> *  Reference to the coronavirus Act 2020 - particularly Schedules 14 and 19

> etc.

> I see no such data from those who are promoting an attack.

> In fact, I'd question if any forum user has read the Coronavirus Act 2020 in full.

> Referencing the government's own laws/clauses is antivax?  

No, what you are doing is selectively quoting clauses, and wholesale misinterpreting legislation.

It's Freeman on the land shifting focus to COVID.

> Categorising people in such a way is not helping your case - it is only demonstrating narrow-mindedness, and an inability to discuss the issued I've raised thus far.

> > and then tries to get some 'credibility' by putting up a winter climbing post.

> ...No winning with those who have their mind made up.  I stated in my first post that I was going to post RE winter climbing - which has since happened - yet the goalposts are still moving as you sense someone who disagrees with you, yet can legally justify their position with reference to particular clauses etc

> I could care less RE credibility if you feel that you represent the climbing community.

> > You must think we're eight year-olds.

> Yourself/those who are in your camp?  No, I think more of 8-year olds.

> And I'm sure if on a hill, you'd have more respect when addressing me.

Lol. No.

1
 Lankyman 22 Nov 2021
In reply to silverbirchiness:

> I've posted factual, accurate information e.g:

> *  Reference to Art.9 of the GDPR/its importance RE protected characteristics - of which data concerning health is classed as

> *  Reference to the Equality Act 2010

> *  Reference to the coronavirus Act 2020 - particularly Schedules 14 and 19

> etc.

> I see no such data from those who are promoting an attack.

> In fact, I'd question if any forum user has read the Coronavirus Act 2020 in full.

> Referencing the government's own laws/clauses is antivax?  

> Categorising people in such a way is not helping your case - it is only demonstrating narrow-mindedness, and an inability to discuss the issued I've raised thus far.

> > and then tries to get some 'credibility' by putting up a winter climbing post.

> ...No winning with those who have their mind made up.  I stated in my first post that I was going to post RE winter climbing - which has since happened - yet the goalposts are still moving as you sense someone who disagrees with you, yet can legally justify their position with reference to particular clauses etc

> I could care less RE credibility if you feel that you represent the climbing community.

> > You must think we're eight year-olds.

> Yourself/those who are in your camp?  No, I think more of 8-year olds.

> And I'm sure if on a hill, you'd have more respect when addressing me.

I'm going to get my Dad onto you!

 john arran 22 Nov 2021
In reply to silverbirchiness:

> Can I ask if your wife has vaginal thrush?  Legally there is no difference i.e both are attempts to process data concerning health.

You seem to be confusing 'suffers from an actual medical condition' with 'chooses to act responsibly (or otherwise) in helping to ensure a deadly virus spreads no further and kills no more than necessary'. One is data concerning health; the only health-related information contained in the other would be psychiatric.

 Hooo 22 Nov 2021
In reply to captain paranoia:

I was going to say this but you beat me to it. The sockpuppets always give themselves away so quickly. Can we get them banned now?

 Andy Hardy 22 Nov 2021
In reply to crustysock and the anti-vax massive:

Don't you want this COVID bollocks to end at some point? By refusing vaccination you're prolonging the agony for all of us.

2
In reply to john arran:

> > Can I ask if your wife has vaginal thrush?  Legally there is no difference i.e both are attempts to process data concerning health.

> You seem to be confusing 'suffers from an actual medical condition' with 'chooses to act responsibly (or otherwise) in helping to ensure a deadly virus spreads no further and kills no more than necessary'.

No. 

And again: if an individual chooses to consent to the processing of data concerning health (i.e as per Art.9 of the GDPR/data concerning health being a protected characteristic), there is no violation.

But if they do not consent, the data processor can be fined (very high fines no less), as per Art.83 of the GDPR.

'Chooses to act responsibly' is an ethical stance - and both positions could be argued (this doesn't interest me in the context of my replies here/this thread).  I'm talking law.

11
In reply to ThunderCat:

> "Are you a regular forum user with another name,

No

> who has registered several new usernames quite recently

No

> and is now posting similar messages under each of those new aliases

No

> (and maybe using the winter climbing post to give yourself credibility)"

No

> is the question a lot of people would like you to confirm or deny...

Is it so difficult to appreciate that an individual may not have the same view as you/the projected zeitgeist of a few very vocal forum members?

Also: work on your forum welcome.

19
 wintertree 22 Nov 2021
In reply to Hooo:

> I was going to say this but you beat me to it. The sockpuppets always give themselves away so quickly. Can we get them banned now?

It must really hurt, having burnt through the back catalogue of 2 to 10 year old "sleeper" accounts this summer.

 Lankyman 22 Nov 2021

In reply to wintertree:

> > And I'm sure if on a hill, you'd have more respect when addressing me.

> I wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire, hill or no hill.

Silver birch is full of resin and very flammable. Definitely not worth risking your todger.

 off-duty 22 Nov 2021
In reply to silverbirchiness:

> No. 

> And again: if an individual chooses to consent to the processing of data concerning health (i.e as per Art.9 of the GDPR/data concerning health being a protected characteristic), there is no violation.

> But if they do not consent, the data processor can be fined (very high fines no less), as per Art.83 of the GDPR.

> 'Chooses to act responsibly' is an ethical stance - and both positions could be argued (this doesn't interest me in the context of my replies here/this thread).  I'm talking law.

Seatbelt law. Drink driving law. You know, actual law rather than the law that you are trying to (mis)interpret in your head.

I appreciate that you've scoured through some fairly complex legislation and think you have grasped the golden nugget that you can base your entire world view on, but you are, basically, wrong.

2
 wintertree 22 Nov 2021
In reply to Lankyman:

> Silver birch is full of resin and very flammable.

I'm hoping one will be big enough in a few years that I can tap it and try and make silver birch syrup from concentrating the resin.  Got to be worth a punt...

 wintertree 22 Nov 2021
In reply to off-duty:

> And yes, this is a sustained ad hominem, your points are laughable.

An "ad soccum", one might say, if classically inclined.

1
 ThunderCat 22 Nov 2021
In reply to silverbirchiness:

> Is it so difficult to appreciate that an individual may not have the same view as you/the projected zeitgeist of a few very vocal forum members

Not at all. Lots of subjects and discussion and differing opinions. Its what makes it such an interesting place to lurk and sometimes contribute to

> Also: work on your forum welcome.

Nah, I'm happy as it is thankyouverymuch. Maybe you could work on having a look at yourself, and your odd need to set up multiple accounts to shore up your arguments. You must admit. It's a "teeny" bit odd, isn't it...? If there's bedwetting, firestarting and the torture of small animals happening in your life too then for God's sake, speak to someone.

Reet. I'm off to bed cos I've got an awful early start tomorrow. Sweet dreams ukc. Xx

 off-duty 22 Nov 2021
In reply to silverbirchiness:

> No

> No

> No

> No

> Is it so difficult to appreciate that an individual may not have the same view as you/the projected zeitgeist of a few very vocal forum members?

You can have whatever view you want. But if you want to spout dangerous nonsense backed up by misunderstood and misinterpreted legislation the expect to be called out on it.

> Also: work on your forum welcome.

Yes. This is the polite welcome. We probably should have been more curt.

1
 wintertree 22 Nov 2021
In reply to silverbirchiness:

> No

> No

> No

> No

Vicar of Dibley fan or 2 Unlimited?

I was always a bit partial to 2 Unlimited myself.  Everybody say Yeah!

2
In reply to off-duty:

> if you want to spout dangerous nonsense backed up by misunderstood and misinterpreted legislation the expect to be called out on it.

Elaborate what was inaccurate RE my statements on

*  Schedule 14 of the Coronavirus Act

*  Schedule 19 of the Coronavirus Act

*  Art.9 of the GDPR.

Thanks

10
 ThunderCat 22 Nov 2021
In reply to wintertree:

> Vicar of Dibley fan or 2 Unlimited?

> I was always a bit partial to 2 Unlimited myself.  Everybody say Yeah!

No no no no no no no no no no no no theres no lyrics.. 

 jimtitt 22 Nov 2021
In reply to silverbirchiness:

Schedules 14 and 19 only apply to Scotland. TiE is the guy to talk to.

 off-duty 22 Nov 2021
In reply to silverbirchiness:

I haven't even followed what gibberish you are trying to interpret the coronavirus schedules as.

I think the seat belt and drink driving legislation aptly demonstrate how shallow and incorrect your understanding of the GDPR is.

 wintertree 22 Nov 2021
In reply to jimtitt:

> Schedules 14 and 19 only apply to Scotland. TiE is the guy to talk to.

Funny thing is, I'm pretty sure the one about death certificates was a case of reasonable worst case planning over how fast they expected to be having to handle dead bodies by May 2020.  Absolutely horrific that things escalated so quickly to the point that was considered a prudent way of expediting the processing of record numbers of deaths.

Thanks the gods nowhere in Europe ended up anywhere near that level of disaster zone; although we've seen it play out elsewhere in the world.

In reply to Lankyman:

> Silver birch is full of resin and very flammable.

Pops up very quickly. Grows prolifically. Rots quickly.

In reply to silverbirchiness:

> No

Uh-huh...

 wintertree 22 Nov 2021
In reply to silverbirchiness:

> RE RE 

Asian Kung-Fu Generation Fan are we Sir?  Fan of the bass, sir?  Oh.  Suits you, Sir. 

youtube.com/watch?v=Mj9yc_TmdL8&

In reply to off-duty:

> I haven't even followed what gibberish you are trying to interpret the coronavirus schedules as.

Schedule 14 (yes, Scotland-specific - but the same principle exists for England/I'm referencing this particular Schedule) removes audit process RE cause of death.

In other words, all deaths marked as covid deaths could be false - as there is no way to verify.

As such, the 'covid plotting' threads on this forum could be utterly moot, as the statistical basis is potentially moot, due to Schedule 14 (and equivalents for England/Wales etc).

Schedule 19: government granting itself permission to seize/destroy an individual's possessions/business etc. 

Also government giving itself permission to indefinitely detain someone at an unspecified location, and 're-educate' them.  

In other words: Hardonicus' position RE members of the public having serious concern is not without merit, given the government have given themselves the right to take everything someone has on the basis of what could be entirely inaccurate/false data.

> I think the seat belt and drink driving legislation aptly demonstrate how shallow and incorrect your understanding of the GDPR is.

No.  The individual has to consent to the processing of data concerning health.  

12
 Hooo 22 Nov 2021
In reply to wintertree:

You'd think they have worked out how to be a bit more subtle by now. That's what I really don't get. This person has clearly done this loads of times before. Their arguments have obviously been copied and pasted many times before. They must get the same reaction over and over again. And they are still absolutely shite at the sockpuppetry game. 

 off-duty 22 Nov 2021
In reply to silverbirchiness:

For the sake of brevity, just to keep focusing on your bizarre interpretation, and constant repetition of this nonsense about consent and the GDPR.

> No.  The individual has to consent to the processing of data concerning health.  

Practically - what do you think happens when someone tries to avoid prosecution for not wearing a seatbelt or not providing a breath test based on their "private medical data"?

Legally speaking - haven't you read the numerous paragraphs explaining how that right to consent is a qualified right and the conditions  are listed in  Article 9, section 2.

 Lankyman 22 Nov 2021
In reply to silverbirchiness:

> Schedule 14 (yes, Scotland-specific - but the same principle exists for England/I'm referencing this particular Schedule) removes audit process RE cause of death.

> In other words, all deaths marked as covid deaths could be false - as there is no way to verify.

> As such, the 'covid plotting' threads on this forum could be utterly moot, as the statistical basis is potentially moot, due to Schedule 14 (and equivalents for England/Wales etc).

> Schedule 19: government granting itself permission to seize/destroy an individual's possessions/business etc. 

> Also government giving itself permission to indefinitely detain someone at an unspecified location, and 're-educate' them.  

> In other words: Hardonicus' position RE members of the public having serious concern is not without merit, given the government have given themselves the right to take everything someone has on the basis of what could be entirely inaccurate/false data.

> No.  The individual has to consent to the processing of data concerning health.  

You need to get tucked up now. Early start will see you at the foot of Cruachan ready to get that first route in.

1
 wintertree 22 Nov 2021
In reply to silverbirchiness:

Come on, give me something to work with.  I've got a "Billy Joel" link I really want to work in, and of course we've got to get round to how difficult it is to learn the chorus of Inner Circle's "Bad Boys".

It's like you're not even trying...

1
In reply to silverbirchiness:

So I actually had a read (a mistake on my part).

My interpretation of article 14 is it lets the government deal with a mass death scenario. I.e. 10,000s of deaths a day. Instead of medically certifying them you could just use a JCB and dump them in a mass grave.

Article 19 - do you remember the first repatriation flight back from Wuhan. We spent considerable time, effort and money getting the people back and then they threatened to leave their quarantine unless the government paid them cash to stay put and fed them better food. It seems designed to deal with muppets like that.

I don’t think anyone would argue against the fact that we’ve given the government tremendous power over our lives. I’m probably in the minority as I think in many cases we’ve given them too much power, but extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures.

At the end of the day the proof of the pudding is in the eating. The current government doesn’t seem inclined to cling on to the current powers longer than they have too (although being a cynic I’m sure they’ll try to keep certain bits).

In reply to Hooo:

> You'd think they have worked out how to be a bit more subtle by now. That's what I really don't get. This person has clearly done this loads of times before. Their arguments have obviously been copied and pasted many times before. They must get the same reaction over and over again. And they are still absolutely shite at the sockpuppetry game. 

I'm out/will contact winter climbers by PM, due to this continued false accusation of having multiple accounts/posting on this topic etc.

This is not a welcoming forum for those who apparently disagree with the die-hard cult clique who believe themselves to be voices of the forum/speak on behalf of others - and try to hammer others into their own mould (very procrustean, may I add).

Unsure if you are incapable of hearing others due to the volume of your own voices/inability to shut up for a minute and listen to others.  

Good luck with your 'covid plotting' threads - which could be built entirely on a foundation of sand (Schedule 14 etc).

Pleased to report that your vehement hatred of those who disagree with you is not indicative of conversations I've had with climbers in the real world.

I'll leave you to return to your cult/hatred of those outside the cult.

16
In reply to VSisjustascramble:

> The current government doesn’t seem inclined to cling on to the current powers longer than they have too (although being a cynic I’m sure they’ll try to keep certain bits).

The Scottish Government literally just had a consultation RE maintaining Schedule 19 beyond the expiry of the Coronavirus Act 2020 i.e concerns are very justified.

OK, out.

13
 ThunderCat 22 Nov 2021
In reply to silverbirchiness:

Worst

Flounce

Ever

1
 wintertree 22 Nov 2021
In reply to ThunderCat:

> Worst Flounce Ever

More or less the same one we saw from one of "AndrewSmith45", "joeblow" or "John Thomas" last seen around October 2020.  I can't remember which - they all blur together in memory.

1
 Lankyman 22 Nov 2021
In reply to silverbirchiness:

> I'm out/will contact winter climbers by PM, due to this continued false accusation of having multiple accounts/posting on this topic etc.

> This is not a welcoming forum for those who apparently disagree with the die-hard cult clique who believe themselves to be voices of the forum/speak on behalf of others - and try to hammer others into their own mould (very procrustean, may I add).

> Unsure if you are incapable of hearing others due to the volume of your own voices/inability to shut up for a minute and listen to others.  

> Good luck with your 'covid plotting' threads - which could be built entirely on a foundation of sand (Schedule 14 etc).

> Pleased to report that your vehement hatred of those who disagree with you is not indicative of conversations I've had with climbers in the real world.

> I'll leave you to return to your cult/hatred of those outside the cult.

Please, I take it all back! Don't go, for God's sake somebody stop him, sob, sob, sob, sob ... Since my baby left me, I got a new place to dwell. It's down at the end of Lonely Street, called Heartbreak Hotel.

In reply to silverbirchiness:

I’m certainly no fan of Ms Krankie.

I think the Scottish government at times have used Covid powers to make a political point rather than acting in best interests of public health.

And I do honestly think that the Scottish and Welsh governments are dreading the pandemic ending as they will cease to be more important than UK government once they can’t dictate how people live their lives. Will they potentially try to keep the rules in place as long as possible - maybe.

Having said that - do I think your points are valid - no.

2
 off-duty 22 Nov 2021
In reply to silverbirchiness:

> This is not a welcoming forum for those who apparently disagree with the die-hard cult clique who believe themselves to be voices of the forum/speak on behalf of others - and try to hammer others into their own mould (very procrustean, may I add).

> Unsure if you are incapable of hearing others due to the volume of your own voices/inability to shut up for a minute and listen to others.  

You asked about GDPR. I gave you a response, even quoting specific paragraphs of legislation. 

You don't get much more listened to than that.

 ThunderCat 22 Nov 2021
In reply to wintertree:

Flouncey sinatra

Mariella shit strop

(stolen from the thick of it) 

In reply to Hardonicus:

As said, government attempt to retain all of Schedule 19 i.e right to seize/destroy property/business etc - unsure how to insert link, but search for:

Coronavirus (COVID-19) recovery - justice system, health and public services reform: consultation - gov.scot (www.gov.scot)

(Page 7, Topic H2)

i.e not paranoid RE government overreach - but realistic/informed.  

Again - if possible, could forum members who have read the Coronavirus Act 2020 in its entirety please state they have done so.  I have a feeling vocal forum members are ignorant, not informed (observation, not a criticism).

Ok, over & out.  

Post edited at 21:27
13
In reply to wintertree:

> What’s the collective noun for sock puppets?  A “Tufton” of sock puppets?  A “Barrington” of sock puppets?  An embarrassment of sock puppets?

A smelliness of sock puppets.

1
 off-duty 22 Nov 2021
In reply to silverbirchiness:

It's not about reading the Coronavirus act, it's about understanding it.

A bit like the GDPR, on which you appear to have gone strangely silent....

 Tom F Harding 22 Nov 2021
In reply to silverbirchiness:

I’ve been lurking on this thread... It has been interesting to see the tactics you are trying use.

- Frame your crazy agenda as a reasonable argument that needs to be considered.

-Spout pages and pages of half gibberish that few care about or will ever read. The volume makes you sound like you might actually be knowledgeable in the subject. (RE you are not)

- Keep repeating the words over and over again until no one can really be bothered to engage with you anymore. This will defuse any serious detailed criticism of the specifics of your ‘argument/agenda’. The last man standing must be the winner – right?

- Rebuff attacks about your real motives with accusations of exactly the same thing as you are being called. Get called a cult, well you must be a cult. Get accused of trying to hammer a message, well you must be trying to hammer your message. Straight out of the Trump playbook stuff.

Finally, you hope a lurker or two on this thread will say to themselves. “He seems to know what he’s talking about, everyone was really nasty to him and wanted to stop discussion – maybe he’s on to something!”. You have also mentioned personal messages a few times as well – are you soliciting?

About right?

edit - spelling/grammar

Post edited at 21:42
 wintertree 22 Nov 2021
In reply to silverbirchiness:

> Ok, over & out.  

You said that before, then immediately did otherwise.

Liar, Liar, Pants Are On Fire.

> Again - if possible, could forum members who have read the Coronavirus Act 2020 in its entirety please state they have done so.

I would, but some years ago a poster you never met called "RomTheBear" posted something on a thread.  The thread was a request for thoughts from someone who suspected they were going in to an employment disciplinary.  

Rom warned all posters on the thread that if they commented on legal matters, they would ipsi dipshit defecacto be in "breach".  

Don’t listen to me or anybody else here. Giving legal advice to someone is illegal unless you are qualified, even on the internet. Which puts most people on here in breach.

Rom is smart, and so I heed Rom's advice.  Hence, I won't be giving legal interpretation as you so ask, even though I have read it in full several times.  Ipsi Dipshit and all that.

 Lankyman 22 Nov 2021
In reply to silverbirchiness:

> As said, government attempt to retain all of Schedule 19 i.e right to seize/destroy property/business etc - unsure how to insert link, but search for:

> Coronavirus (COVID-19) recovery - justice system, health and public services reform: consultation - gov.scot (www.gov.scot)

> (Page 7, Topic H2)

> i.e not paranoid RE government overreach - but realistic/informed.  

> Again - if possible, could forum members who have read the Coronavirus Act 2020 in its entirety please state they have done so.  I have a feeling vocal forum members are ignorant, not informed (observation, not a criticism).

> Ok, over & out.  

I thought you'd gone to bed? Drink your Horlicks up and don't forget to brush your teeth.

 Ridge 22 Nov 2021
In reply to silverbirchiness:

> New user here.  About to post RE some climbing venues, but this thread has caught my interest

Err...

Well...

Actually I can't be arsed to even engage.

F**k off you utterly tedious troll/sockpuppet

 off-duty 22 Nov 2021
In reply to silverbirchiness:

> As said, government attempt to retain all of Schedule 19 i.e right to seize/destroy property/business etc - unsure how to insert link, but search for:

> Coronavirus (COVID-19) recovery - justice system, health and public services reform: consultation - gov.scot (www.gov.scot)

> (Page 7, Topic H2)

> i.e not paranoid RE government overreach - but realistic/informed.  

> Again - if possible, could forum members who have read the Coronavirus Act 2020 in its entirety please state they have done so.  I have a feeling vocal forum members are ignorant, not informed (observation, not a criticism).

> Ok, over & out.  

So just for clarity. We are undergoing a global pandemic. Something long feared but never actually taken seriously enough.

When it broke it became clear that we actually lacked a legislative basis for some of the necessary actions if it got worse, or if large scale rapid action was necessary.

As a result the Coronavirus legislation was written. Much of it has remained unused. Bits of it may have been used to underpin things like enforced quarantine even if not prosecuted.

As we, hopefully, emerge out of this pandemic, governments consider whether they should retain some of this legislation to deal with another pandemic - now we realise that it really can happen.

As a result they look at retaining elements such as sched 19.  All the restrictions imposed by it are predicated by a requirement for an infectious pandemic. ie not just doing stuff for the sake of it 

Seems pretty reasonable to me. 

2
In reply to the thread:

Well that was an entertaining read…  

😂

 Ridge 22 Nov 2021
In reply to silverbirchiness:

> Ok, over & out.  

It's either "over", where you await a response, or "out", where you sign off. I'd have thought someone who avidly reads every paragraph of legislation might have at least a basic grasp of communications terminology.

I bet you say "lock and load" too, because you think it impresses people. You are David Cameron and I claim my free membership of the Bullingdon Club.

 Andy Hardy 22 Nov 2021
In reply to ThunderCat:

Meaty, Beaty, Big & Flouncy

 r0x0r.wolfo 22 Nov 2021
In reply to silverbirchiness:

> No.  The individual has to consent to the processing of data concerning health.  

Wrong. Christ you're thick.

 mondite 22 Nov 2021
In reply to Ridge:

> It's either "over", where you await a response, or "out", where you sign off.

Well they did flounce prior to that message so perhaps they werent sure whether they would be back to spew rubbish or were going to sod off/dust off a new sockpuppet.

 wercat 22 Nov 2021
In reply to silverbirchiness:

Three pro-words used completely randomly and in the case of the final two, completely self contradictory usage

btw how complain about ad hominem attacks when anti vaxxers are mounting a severe Ad Societam attack that is killing people and will kill people

Over

> Ok, over & out.  

1
In reply to r0x0r.wolfo:

> Wrong. Christ you're thick.

I'm amazed a poster is being attacked for pointing out verifiable information:

From GDPR, Art.9:

"Processing of (...) data concerning health (...) shall be prohibited."

No part of the coronavirus Act revokes Art.9, therefore the above is valid.

Christ, you're thick.

11
In reply to off-duty:

> As a result they look at retaining elements such as sched 19.  All the restrictions imposed by it are predicated by a requirement for an infectious pandemic. ie not just doing stuff for the sake of it 

...With the legislative predication being a 'serious and imminent threat' (look at all legislation passed since March 2020 on legislation.gov and you'll see that this is the justification given for further legislation) - yet both 'serious and 'imminent' have not been defined.

In other words, the government can pass anything (and can destroy your house (Sch.19, 4, (4) (d) )) on the basis of a 'serious and imminent threat' - without ever quantifying what the markers are for determining this 'serious and imminent threat' in the first instance.

12
 Darkinbad 22 Nov 2021
In reply to silverbirchiness:

Yawn...

Art. 9 GDPR - Processing of special categories of personal data

1. Processing of personal data revealing racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs, or trade union membership, and the processing of genetic data, biometric data for the purpose of uniquely identifying a natural person, data concerning health or data concerning a natural person’s sex life or sexual orientation shall be prohibited.

Paragraph 1 shall not apply if one of the following applies:

...

processing relates to personal data which are manifestly made public by the data subject;

1
In reply to Darkinbad:

> Yawn...

> Art. 9 GDPR - Processing of special categories of personal data

> 1. Processing of personal data revealing racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs, or trade union membership, and the processing of genetic data, biometric data for the purpose of uniquely identifying a natural person, data concerning health or data concerning a natural person’s sex life or sexual orientation shall be prohibited.

> Paragraph 1 shall not apply if one of the following applies:

> ...

> processing relates to personal data which are manifestly made public by the data subject;

...Which I already addressed.  Refer to my post at 20.25 - and earlier.  

7
In reply to silverbirchiness:

Can you flounce out again? I don’t think twice is enough. Third time’s the charm. 

1
In reply to Hardonicus:

I'd like to know how many users of this site have read the Coronavirus Act 2020 - in full.

To all intents and purposes, the answer appears to be 'none'.

I've mentioned acts/clauses etc that, from scanning the forum, have never been mentioned.  This leads me to believe that those who are highly vocal RE their position are utterly uninformed/ignorant as to the legislative/legal force of what they claim to stand for.

Or are said posters burying their heads in the sand RE the implications of the law?

Any forum user who likes the idea of owning something (anything) would do well to read the Act.  Apparently reading/responding to threads is more important than the laws that determine our very existence?  

And as said, all stats/'covid plotting' charts as seen on this forum could be an utter waste of time, given the suspension of the review of death certificates.  All audit/verification processes RE cause of death/attribution were revoked with that single piece of legislation.     

8
 Darkinbad 22 Nov 2021
In reply to silverbirchiness:

OK. Take your pick from:

> processing is necessary for reasons of substantial public interest, on the basis of Union or Member State law which shall be proportionate to the aim pursued, respect the essence of the right to data protection and provide for suitable and specific measures to safeguard the fundamental rights and the interests of the data subject;

> processing is necessary for the purposes of preventive or occupational medicine, for the assessment of the working capacity of the employee, medical diagnosis, the provision of health or social care or treatment or the management of health or social care systems and services on the basis of Union or Member State law or pursuant to contract with a health professional and subject to the conditions and safeguards referred to in paragraph 3;

> processing is necessary for reasons of public interest in the area of public health, such as protecting against serious cross-border threats to health or ensuring high standards of quality and safety of health care and of medicinal products or medical devices, on the basis of Union or Member State law which provides for suitable and specific measures to safeguard the rights and freedoms of the data subject, in particular professional secrecy;

Funnily enough, though, I have an anecdote that suggests that some organizations are indeed taking a hyper-cautious approach to processing vaccination status data, although not in a GDPR context. Here in Sydney, my local climbing gym required me to show proof of vaccination before entry (a legal requirement under the current public health order) but they were unwilling to record this in their system for subsequent visits, which became a bit tedious.

 off-duty 22 Nov 2021
In reply to silverbirchiness:

Your misinterpretation of the Coronavirus act is a pretty clear demonstration that  reading it isn't the same as understanding it. 

And I notice that other than keeping on repeating "consent" you haven't actually addressed the various issues raised with your misunderstanding of GDPR.

In reply to Darkinbad:

> Funnily enough, though, I have an anecdote that suggests that some organizations are indeed taking a hyper-cautious approach to processing vaccination status data, although not in a GDPR context. Here in Sydney, my local climbing gym required me to show proof of vaccination before entry (a legal requirement under the current public health order) but they were unwilling to record this in their system for subsequent visits, which became a bit tedious.

A respectful reply.  Thanks.

Proof of vaccination is not synonymous with asking if you have been vaccinated (which would constitute the processing of special category data), even though the end result is the same. 

I'm aware that to all intents and purposes they appear similar.

Legislatively similar would be Nazis asking for your 'I'm not a Jew' pass - they wouldn't be directly processing special category data or asking if you are Jewish, but would be achieving the same end result.

Note that throughout this exchange that I haven't stated I'm against vaccination; only that the law - and those that the government plans to extend - could be used against the population. 

Of course, personal positions shouldn't matter, and sensible individuals should be able to defend their position without recourse to personal attack - especially when factual, verifiable information is provided...

Ps I don't personally know details RE Australian law, therefore I can't comment RE specifics.

9
 Jon Stewart 22 Nov 2021
In reply to VSisjustascramble:

> And I do honestly think that the Scottish and Welsh governments are dreading the pandemic ending as they will cease to be more important than UK government once they can’t dictate how people live their lives.

I don't think you should spend much more time mind-reading the Scottish and Welsh govts. They're people with real lives and families who would probably much rather they didn't have the pandemic to deal with at work. It's kind of a hassle, you know. 

Johnson also wants the pandemic over. But while it's been around, he's used it to cover for as much of the fall-out of his f*cking shit brexit as he could (not to mention all the dodgy contracts for donors) so let's not try and make out that it's the specifically the devolved nations who might want to use covid for political or personal gain, eh? That would look a lot like bullshit.

Post edited at 23:50
1
 off-duty 22 Nov 2021
In reply to silverbirchiness:

> ...With the legislative predication being a 'serious and imminent threat' (look at all legislation passed since March 2020 on legislation.gov and you'll see that this is the justification given for further legislation) - yet both 'serious and 'imminent' have not been defined.

> In other words, the government can pass anything (and can destroy your house (Sch.19, 4, (4) (d) )) on the basis of a 'serious and imminent threat' - without ever quantifying what the markers are for determining this 'serious and imminent threat' in the first instance.

It's this nonsense Freeman of the land interpretation of the law by clinging to and misinterpreting one clause (as well as applying a tonne of bad faith, thin end of the wedge nonsense to what you read) which is why reading the legislation is not as important as understanding it - as you  ignore all other parts of the legislation - like paragraphs 2, 3 (particularly relevant in light of the OP) and 6.

Genuinely. This is really embarrassing stuff.

Edit to add - don't forget GDPR. You seem to have decided that isn't worth discussing any more. lolz.

Post edited at 23:53
 mondite 22 Nov 2021
In reply to off-duty:

> Genuinely. This is really embarrassing stuff.

Got to admire their bravery though. If I truly believed that nonsense I am not sure I would be fearlessly standing up against the tyranical government in case I got woke up tomorrow by a bulldozer.

In reply to off-duty:

> Your misinterpretation of the Coronavirus act is a pretty clear demonstration that  reading it isn't the same as understanding it. 

Which misinterpretations?  could you be specific.  I have referenced particular clauses and discussed potential dangers therein.

> And I notice that other than keeping on repeating "consent" you haven't actually addressed the various issues raised with your misunderstanding of GDPR.

Which issues?  I have mentioned that the individual has to give consent in order for special category data to be processed - with 'data concerning health' constituting special category data (which I'm sure one of the forum loud-mouths stated was false when I initially mentioned data concerning health being special category data).

If various forum members wish to declare their vaccination status to the world, they are more than welcome to do so.  But remember that:

a)  You consented to this through your self-declaration, and

b)  If an extreme, totalitarian government got hold of the reins and took a dislike to the 'vaccinated', you'd all be in potentially very big trouble due to your self-declaration.  

Sometimes it is better to keep our mouth shut, rather than state our allegiance to a group/perception of a group.  Whilst stating one's commitment to the group/ideology therein may win brownie points on a forum of strangers, sacrificing special category to all and asunder strikes me as irresponsible at best, and stupid at worst. 

4
 off-duty 22 Nov 2021
In reply to silverbirchiness:

> A respectful reply.  Thanks.

> Proof of vaccination is not synonymous with asking if you have been vaccinated (which would constitute the processing of special category data), even though the end result is the same. 

> I'm aware that to all intents and purposes they appear similar.

> Legislatively similar would be Nazis asking for your 'I'm not a Jew' pass - they wouldn't be directly processing special category data or asking if you are Jewish, but would be achieving the same end result.

I choose my words carefully here, but really. This example? You are a total and utter moron. 

> Note that throughout this exchange that I haven't stated I'm against vaccination; only that the law - and those that the government plans to extend - could be used against the population. 

Go on then. Be clear. You are pro vaccination aren't you?

> Of course, personal positions shouldn't matter, and sensible individuals should be able to defend their position without recourse to personal attack - especially when factual, verifiable information is provided...

But you appear to confuse quoting law you don't understand and lacing it with hypothetical and bad faith rubbish with  "factual and verifiable". 

1
 mondite 22 Nov 2021
In reply to silverbirchiness:

> No part of the coronavirus Act revokes Art.9, therefore the above is valid.

Since it doesnt need to due to the other parts of the GDPR. Handily the ICO have put together guidance.

https://ico.org.uk/global/data-protection-and-coronavirus-information-hub/coronavirus-recovery-data-protection-advice-for-organisations/vaccination-and-covid-pass-checks/

Now which parts of that do you disagree with and why?

 off-duty 23 Nov 2021
In reply to silverbirchiness:

> Which misinterpretations?  could you be specific.  I have referenced particular clauses and discussed potential dangers therein.

Yes. The law is made up of clauses. Well done for reading them.

Unfortunately clauses don't make up the law. Go back to school.

> Which issues?  I have mentioned that the individual has to give consent in order for special category data to be processed - with 'data concerning health' constituting special category data (which I'm sure one of the forum loud-mouths stated was false when I initially mentioned data concerning health being special category data).

> If various forum members wish to declare their vaccination status to the world, they are more than welcome to do so.  But remember that:

> a)  You consented to this through your self-declaration, and

> b)  If an extreme, totalitarian government got hold of the reins and took a dislike to the 'vaccinated', you'd all be in potentially very big trouble due to your self-declaration.  

> Sometimes it is better to keep our mouth shut, rather than state our allegiance to a group/perception of a group.  Whilst stating one's commitment to the group/ideology therein may win brownie points on a forum of strangers, sacrificing special category to all and asunder strikes me as irresponsible at best, and stupid at worst. 

I (and others now) have highlighted that your constant rubbish about requiring consent under GDPR is wrong.

Go away read the the whole of article 9 including section 2 which details the exemptions, then consider how this bizarre notion you have of "secret private medical data" actually works in the real world with reference to trying to claim exemption form drink driving or seatbelt law.

2
In reply to off-duty:

> Go on then. Be clear. You are pro vaccination aren't you?

I don't consent to the processing of data concerning my political opinions and/or my religious/philosophical beliefs (see Art.9), therefore I'm not answering your question.

Is it clear enough that an issue can be discussed without one's personal stance in relation to said issue forming part of that conversation?

> But you appear to confuse quoting law you don't understand and lacing it with hypothetical and bad faith rubbish with  "factual and verifiable". 

No.

7
In reply to off-duty:

> I (and others now) have highlighted that your constant rubbish about requiring consent under GDPR is wrong.

Not wrong.

> Go away read the the whole of article 9 including section 2 which details the exemptions, then consider how this bizarre notion you have of "secret private medical data" actually works in the real world with reference to trying to claim exemption form drink driving or seatbelt law.

I'm well aware of the entirety of the GDPR/implications therein.

No-one said anything RE 'secret'.

Individuals on this forum are sacrificing their special category data at an alarming rate with their desire to belong to a perceived group (i.e 'I believe in vaccination, I am fully vaccinated, and I wouldn't even piss on anyone else') - good luck with such naivete.  

5
 off-duty 23 Nov 2021
In reply to silverbirchiness:

> I don't consent to the processing of data concerning my political opinions and/or my religious/philosophical beliefs (see Art.9), therefore I'm not answering your question.

I'm not processing anything, despite what your addled FOTL interpretation of GDPR is. I am asking you a question and you are choosing not to answer.

> Is it clear enough that an issue can be discussed without one's personal stance in relation to said issue forming part of that conversation?

Absolutely. It's very interesting that you won't disclose it though. Especially as you try and invoke some garbled legislative defence rather than just say you aren't going to say.

> No.

A bit of a non sequitur. It wasn't a question. It's a statement.

 Darkinbad 23 Nov 2021
In reply to silverbirchiness:

> A respectful reply.  Thanks.

> Proof of vaccination is not synonymous with asking if you have been vaccinated (which would constitute the processing of special category data), even though the end result is the same. 

I have a hard time thinking there is any meaningful/legal distinction between asking "have you been vaccinated" and "please show me your proof of vaccination" other than that the latter is likely to provide a more trustworthy answer. As my anecdote shows, if there is no record of the answer then there is no processing and GDPR is irrelevant.

> Legislatively similar would be Nazis...

Please, no.

 off-duty 23 Nov 2021
In reply to silverbirchiness:

> Not wrong.

Wrong.

> I'm well aware of the entirety of the GDPR/implications therein.

Clearly not 

> No-one said anything RE 'secret'.

> Individuals on this forum are sacrificing their special category data at an alarming rate with their desire to belong to a perceived group (i.e 'I believe in vaccination, I am fully vaccinated, and I wouldn't even piss on anyone else') - good luck with such naivete.  

Hahahahahahaha. "Special category data". 

It's funny how you resort to trying to string nonsense together rather than actually address the exemptions of Art 9 data, or the practicalities of how this nonsense idea you have about no-one being able to find out medical data about you without consent.

3
In reply to mondite:

> Since it doesnt need to due to the other parts of the GDPR. Handily the ICO have put together guidance.

> Now which parts of that do you disagree with and why?

I disagree with none of it (I'm already familiar with it, hence replying quickly).  

PS I assume this very website has conducted a DPIA, given the self-declaration made by individuals RE their medical data/storage of special category data on this forum, as a product of their self-declaration (i.e said medical declaration can be tied to info such as IP address)?

Are you aware of the ramifications of this, were there a data breach?

Are you (site users) sure they wish to share such info on a public platform?

5
In reply to Darkinbad:

> I have a hard time thinking there is any meaningful/legal distinction between asking "have you been vaccinated" and "please show me your proof of vaccination" other than that the latter is likely to provide a more trustworthy answer.

I'm aware you are having a hard time making a meaningful/legal distinction.  

But this doesn't mean such a distinction does not exist.  

4
In reply to off-duty:

> Hahahahahahaha. "Special category data". 

Yes.  Stating whether you are vaccinated or not is your consenting to the processing of data concerning health (in the specific instance of vaccination status) - special category data, as per Art.9 of the GDPR.  

Good luck with that, and with your belief that you aren't consenting to the processing of such data.

5
 Darkinbad 23 Nov 2021
In reply to silverbirchiness:

Oh, go on then. Explain it to me. No Nazis, please.

 off-duty 23 Nov 2021
In reply to silverbirchiness:

> I disagree with none of it (I'm already familiar with it, hence replying quickly).  

> PS I assume this very website has conducted a DPIA, given the self-declaration made by individuals RE their medical data/storage of special category data on this forum, as a product of their self-declaration (i.e said medical declaration can be tied to info such as IP address)?

> Are you aware of the ramifications of this, were there a data breach?

> Are you (site users) sure they wish to share such info on a public platform?

Genuinely. You are making yourself look really really dumb now.

Off the top of my head I think Article 9 2 e (if not a whole lot more) applies.

Just go to bed. And get vaccinated. If your knowledge of medicine is a piss poor as your knowledge of law, then you clearly haven't already been.

In reply to off-duty:

> I am asking you a question and you are choosing not to answer.

Your asking me the question you asked is an attempt to process special category data as per Art.9 of the GDPR (i.e data concerning political beliefs etc - as I already stated).  I told you I do not consent to this processing.

It would appear that this thread consists of those who think they understand what they are talking about - when the opposite appears to be the case.  

5
 off-duty 23 Nov 2021
In reply to silverbirchiness:

> Yes.  Stating whether you are vaccinated or not is your consenting to the processing of data concerning health (in the specific instance of vaccination status) - special category data, as per Art.9 of the GDPR.  

> Good luck with that, and with your belief that you aren't consenting to the processing of such data.

Dude. Stop flouncing round the sidelines muttering "consent" and "processing" like they are magic legal terms. Address the substance - I'll repeat it, yet again:

Legal: There's a bunch of exemptions within Article 9

Practical: Seat belt and drink driving law 

1
 off-duty 23 Nov 2021
In reply to silverbirchiness:

> Your asking me the question you asked is an attempt to process special category data as per Art.9 of the GDPR (i.e data concerning political beliefs etc - as I already stated).  I told you I do not consent to this processing.

> It would appear that this thread consists of those who think they understand what they are talking about - when the opposite appears to be the case.  

Never a truer word spoken. It's a good job one of us has some practical knowledge isn't it.

 Darkinbad 23 Nov 2021
In reply to silverbirchiness:

> I disagree with none of it (I'm already familiar with it, hence replying quickly).  

> PS I assume this very website has conducted a DPIA, given the self-declaration made by individuals RE their medical data/storage of special category data on this forum, as a product of their self-declaration (i.e said medical declaration can be tied to info such as IP address)?

> Are you aware of the ramifications of this, were there a data breach?

> Are you (site users) sure they wish to share such info on a public platform?

The individuals concerned have made their vaccination status "manifestly public" and as such GDPR Art 9 Para 1 does not apply to this data and the site owners need have no concern.

Doxxing of individuals on public forums is a genuine problem that data processors need to take steps to address, but this is not what is happening here.

Post edited at 00:27
In reply to Darkinbad:

> The individuals concerned have made their vaccination status "manifestly public" and as such GDPR Art 9 Para 1 does not apply to this data and the site owners need have no concern.

Inaccurate.

I'm telling you that this website would do well to have a DPIA in place RE this particular issue.  That isn't legal advice - merely an encouragement.

> Doxxing of individuals on public forums is a genuine problem that data processors need to take steps to address, but this is not what is happening here.

Agreed.

But it could happen here.

Each time I ask RE who has read the Coronavirus Act 2020 in full (with reference to UK-based users - not yourself), the tumbleweed rolls by.

I believe we have a true situation of the blind leading the blind. 

Again, I say as an observation (not a criticism) that almost all (if not all) forum users are ignorant on what they are signing up to - or rather, believe they are signing up to/standing for.  

By all means, all forum users can feel special/informed RE the 'covid plotting' data - and other such niceties - but the entire basis of the position could be utterly flawed.  

I've already alluded to the 'covid plotting' data potentially being a large exercise in how to waste time, in light of Sch.14 of the CV Act 2020 (and the various schedules for various countries of the UK) i.e there is no audit process in place RE the formation of the data in the first instance - due to the government revoking it.  

  

Good luck RE your 'covid plotting' justifying your position.  You'd do better by reading the law.

7
 off-duty 23 Nov 2021
In reply to silverbirchiness:

> Inaccurate.

> I'm telling you that this website would do well to have a DPIA in place RE this particular issue.  That isn't legal advice - merely an encouragement.

The website will almost certainly have some provisions around GDPR.

Me asking you your vaccine status does not make me a "processor". 

> Agreed.

> But it could happen here.

> Each time I ask RE who has read the Coronavirus Act 2020 in full (with reference to UK-based users - not yourself), the tumbleweed rolls by.

Every time I raise another clause of the legislation that doesn't concur with your bizarre interpretation. Tumbleweed.

> I believe we have a true situation of the blind leading the blind. 

Well judging by your interpretation,it isn't just blind, it's like you've poked your eyes out so hard you've removed half your brain.

> Again, I say as an observation (not a criticism) that almost all (if not all) forum users are ignorant on what they are signing up to - or rather, believe they are signing up to/standing for. 

FFS. Pompous and ill informed.

> By all means, all forum users can feel special/informed RE the 'covid plotting' data - and other such niceties - but the entire basis of the position could be utterly flawed.  

> I've already alluded to the 'covid plotting' data potentially being a large exercise in how to waste time, in light of Sch.14 of the CV Act 2020 (and the various schedules for various countries of the UK) i.e there is no audit process in place RE the formation of the data in the first instance - due to the government revoking it.  

Jeesus. You require a section 2 declaration to be made. There has been one in Scotland. It lasted about a month and a half to cope with the surge in deaths in think. It was published and revoked.

But you knew that didn't you.

> Good luck RE your 'covid plotting' justifying your position.  You'd do better by reading the law.

Genuinely. I don't know why I bother. FOTL stupidity that kills people. 

Get vaccinated. 

 Darkinbad 23 Nov 2021
In reply to silverbirchiness:

> Inaccurate.

How so? Bald assertions (e.g. "But this doesn't mean such a distinction does not exist") don't make for a very interesting discussion.

In reply to Hardonicus:

Well, I’m double vaccinated and am currently isolating having caught covid just after having my booster (not enough time for it to take effect). Glad I’d been vaccinated as my symptoms are fairly mild. I’m not sure that vaccine passport will help. The genie is well out of the bottle now and it’s not going back in. What Jens Spahn said for Germany I think probably applies over here too, before long everyone will either be vaccinated, recovered (or hopefully for me both!)or dead. Realistically I can’t see vaccine passports making much difference.

 Darkinbad 23 Nov 2021
In reply to Mark Kemball:

I believe the idea is to help move people from the 'dead' category to the 'vaccinated' category.

2
In reply to Hardonicus:

Ok, here's the general lie of the land: 

Compliance team, conducting an audit RE government data in relation to death certificates/classification etc, say to the government:

"What processes/practices do you have in place to ensure the data RE death certificates/classification etc are accurate/reliable etc?"

Government response:

"None.  Well, we did have only 2 weeks ago, but we wrote clauses into legislation that allowed us to remove all safeguards, checks, and balances in relation to death certificates - after which we began aggressively publishing our data in the public domain/via media etc. in relation to deaths/classification thereof, once we had removed said checks/balances"

The government removed all checks & balances - wrote it into law - then began publishing their data.  

This data, then passed to the ONS - is what many of you are holding so dearly to, with wintertree's 'covid plotting' threads.  I prefer to refer to these threads as 'wintertree's speculative turd-polishing sessions', but I understand the adherence to them by those who like to present what appears to be thorough, statistically sound data to peers/the impressionable.  

I imagine, with most people, you'll appear to have some authority when you present this data.  

Unfortunately, it is all built on a house of cards.  

-------------------------------

My main surprise is forum members committing to a belief system without reading the doctrine/code etc.  I certainly wouldn't join a religion if I wasn't aware of specifics RE what I was joining.  Hence many of you appear to be cultish - you haven't read the Coronavirus Act 2020, yet speak in a manner that suggests you believe you understand what you are standing for.  

How many were aware of the government's revocation of checks & balances RE death certificates prior to this thread?  And I ask again: how many have read the Coronavirus Act in full?  

...Yet here we have an almost cult-like devotion to pretty little charts/graphs - without what appears to be any one of you reading the doctrine used to form these statistics in the first place.  

By all means wave your polished turd in the faces of others as a badge of your greater intelligence - but don't assume this means others are ill-informed.  

I'm curious how many will bury their heads in the sand and continue with their cult, now they know that all checks & balances harnessed to form the statistics in the first instance have been removed.

The question of why a government would remove all checks & balances prior to aggressively promoting data formed after the removal of said checks & balances is an interesting question.  Speculative, of course - but interesting nonetheless.  

11
 ThunderCat 23 Nov 2021
In reply to wintertree:

This is definately the longest and most drawn out flounce I've ever seen. Seems to have flounced through a revolving door. 

In reply to silverbirchiness:

Aw bless, you've tried your little heart out this time haven't you. Back in a little while with new username, see you then. 

 Wainers44 23 Nov 2021
In reply to silverbirchiness:

Just a couple of things. I have read the Act (Coronavirus etc),  and I am not standing for anything,  in fact I am currently lying down. 

I do like the word "doctrine", and will now attempt to use it while shopping later.

As to the rest of your post. Piffle. 

BTW you would probably feel less tense if you got more sleep....oh, that's assuming that you're UK based, which I hope you aren't.

 off-duty 23 Nov 2021
In reply to silverbirchiness:

> Ok, here's the general lie of the land: 

> Compliance team, conducting an audit RE government data in relation to death certificates/classification etc, say to the government:

> "What processes/practices do you have in place to ensure the data RE death certificates/classification etc are accurate/reliable etc?"

> Government response:

> "None.  Well, we did have only 2 weeks ago, but we wrote clauses into legislation that allowed us to remove all safeguards, checks, and balances in relation to death certificates - after which we began aggressively publishing our data in the public domain/via media etc. in relation to deaths/classification thereof, once we had removed said checks/balances"

> The government removed all checks & balances - wrote it into law - then began publishing their data.  

> This data, then passed to the ONS - is what many of you are holding so dearly to, with wintertree's 'covid plotting' threads.  I prefer to refer to these threads as 'wintertree's speculative turd-polishing sessions', but I understand the adherence to them by those who like to present what appears to be thorough, statistically sound data to peers/the impressionable.  

> I imagine, with most people, you'll appear to have some authority when you present this data.  

> Unfortunately, it is all built on a house of cards.  

> -------------------------------

Literally no. Read the bloody schedule that you keep quoting. There is one key element that you keep missing out that is required before the elements of Sched 14 can come in to effect.

And that element was used by the government - for about a month in Mar-May 2020 - before being revoked.

For a conspiracy nut job with a very shaky grasp of the law, I'd have thought you might have leapt at that - grasping at it as "Look what they have ACTUALLY done".

But you haven't. I'm guessing it's because, as I have repeatedly pointed out, you are hyper focussing on misreading, overthinking and bad faith interpretation of some individual clauses that you think support your conspiracy. 

The law doesn't work like that. You can't have one section without another.

> My main surprise is forum members committing to a belief system without reading the doctrine/code etc.  I certainly wouldn't join a religion if I wasn't aware of specifics RE what I was joining.  Hence many of you appear to be cultish - you haven't read the Coronavirus Act 2020, yet speak in a manner that suggests you believe you understand what you are standing for.  

> How many were aware of the government's revocation of checks & balances RE death certificates prior to this thread?  And I ask again: how many have read the Coronavirus Act in full?  

FFS. It's almost funny that you consider your misunderstanding of the act to be if any value.

> ...Yet here we have an almost cult-like devotion to pretty little charts/graphs - without what appears to be any one of you reading the doctrine used to form these statistics in the first place.  

> By all means wave your polished turd in the faces of others as a badge of your greater intelligence - but don't assume this means others are ill-informed.  

> I'm curious how many will bury their heads in the sand and continue with their cult, now they know that all checks & balances harnessed to form the statistics in the first instance have been removed.

> The question of why a government would remove all checks & balances prior to aggressively promoting data formed after the removal of said checks & balances is an interesting question.  Speculative, of course - but interesting nonetheless.  

It's f@@king hilarious how you are whining about the removal of all checks and balances based on your utter failure to review the checks and balances - AND ACTUAL EXAMPLES OF THEM IN USE-that are built in to the law that you so pompously keep claiming to have read.

Oh. And GDPR. Are you going to keep dribbling on about consent and processing, or ever actually address the repeated, specific clauses and legislation that I have highlighted to demonstrate that your understanding is wrong.

They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. It's seldom that you get to see how dangerous.

Post edited at 06:27
 Lankyman 23 Nov 2021
In reply to ThunderCat:

> This is definately the longest and most drawn out flounce I've ever seen. Seems to have flounced through a revolving door. 

Strictly Come Flouncing? I fear we may only be in the opening round.

 Hooo 23 Nov 2021
In reply to silverbirchiness:

I thought you'd flounced hours ago?

This is a welcoming forum, as you well know. I'm sure you were welcomed the first few times you joined. If you'd started off in a reasonable way with this current sockpuppet then you'd have been treated reasonably again. But this is starting to change. I already see people suspicious of new users posting climbing questions, because so many times this has been a precursor to some nutjob launching in to their conspiracy nonsense. This is your fault, you and the other deluded nutjobs who believe they can see the truth while all us sheeple are blind. You are spoiling this forum, the internet in general and people's lives. The lies you spread are literally leading to the deaths of people who have fallen for them.

We do have real discussion on here. Hardonicus started this thread with a reasonably argued point and they got a reasonable discussion in return. Then you came along spouting nonsense and got shouted down for it. This is not a clique refusing to hear other views, this is how reasonable debate takes place. You don't have an absolute right to be listened to, you have to say something that makes sense if you want people to listen. I'm all in favour of discussing these topics, and I don't dogmatically stick to a position. More and more I keep finding that the truth is never absolute and simple and I end up changing my opinion as I hear new arguments. But it's getting harder to have a reasonable discussion when the likes of you keep hijacking them.

 Hooo 23 Nov 2021
In reply to off-duty:

> But you haven't. I'm guessing it's because, as I have repeatedly pointed out, you are hyper focussing on misreading, overthinking and bad faith interpretation of some individual clauses that you think support your conspiracy. 

This is crux of it. In bog-standard conspiracist fashion they have chosen their position and then trawled the internet for anything they can find that appears to back it up, conveniently ignoring all context or qualification. I bet they didn't even find this stuff themselves, it's almost certainly copied from some other conspiracy theorist who actually did the "research", and is now being pasted all over the internet by the willing sheeple.

 wintertree 23 Nov 2021
In reply to Hooo:

Alternatively, I think this could be "Rom" having another pot shot at disrupting the Covid plotting threads, and they've come up with a particularly narrow lever to do so.  Some of their quotes from this thread:

  • ('covid plotting')
  • The entire 'covid plotting' threads are potentially entirely moot
  • I repeat that the apparently beloved 'covid plotting' threads could be entirely moot,
  • As such, the 'covid plotting' threads on this forum could be utterly moot, as the statistical basis is potentially moot
  • Good luck with your 'covid plotting' threads - which could be built entirely on a foundation of sand
  • And as said, all stats/'covid plotting' charts as seen on this forum could be an utter waste of time, given the suspension of the review of death certificates
  • By all means, all forum users can feel special/informed RE the 'covid plotting' data - and other such niceties - but the entire basis of the position could be utterly flawed.  
  • I've already alluded to the 'covid plotting' data potentially being a large exercise in how to waste time, in light of Sch.14 of the CV Act 2020
  • Good luck RE your 'covid plotting' justifying your position.  You'd do better by reading the law.
  • This data, then passed to the ONS - is what many of you are holding so dearly to, with wintertree's 'covid plotting' threads.  I prefer to refer to these threads as 'wintertree's speculative turd-polishing sessions', but I understand the adherence to them by those who like to present what appears to be thorough, statistically sound data to peers/the impressionable.  

The problem is, not only is their interpretation of the legal side a load of nonsense, their understanding of "Wintertree's speculative turd-polishing sessions" is deeply lacking as well.

Why?

Because a non-used clause in Scottish law that applies only to Scottish death certificates doesn't affect results using data from England, Wales or Scotland at all, and doesn't affect data for any of the four home nations being based, as it is, on the "death within 28 days" criterion and not the "death certificates" criterion.  As he later is an even higher number, if the Scotland government are suppressing bad news here one has to ask "where are all the bodies hidden?".  Then of course there's the international component of these threads using the OWiD data.  Hopefully even this slow poster can see that a clause in a Scottish law isn't gong to affect reporting of deaths from somewhere a thousand miles away.

It's a creepily disturbing level of interest.  I think they'd be more at home on Twitter.

The door is over here: 🚪 > http://twitter.com

 mondite 23 Nov 2021
In reply to wintertree:

>  As he later is an even higher number, if the Scotland government are suppressing bad news here one has to ask "where are all the bodies hidden?". 

Thats easy to answer. Tom is hiding them all (probably in the westminster vaults) since otherwise the English/tories might look good comparatively.

 wercat 23 Nov 2021
In reply to silverbirchiness:

> Unfortunately, it is all built on a house of cards.  

 You may well think so.  I could not possibly comment ...

 Hooo 23 Nov 2021
In reply to wintertree:

A while ago I would have thought you were being paranoid, but I've seen enough now to fully believe that you have at least one seriously obsessed stalker who really needs to get a life. I saw a thread the other day where someone (probably silverRomBirch) had created a new user and started a thread just to attack you and your Covid plotting. It was deleted pretty quickly, so most people wouldn't have seen it and so wouldn't realise just how obsessed this person is. It made me wonder how many other posts and threads there have been that I didn't see because the mods got there first.

Post edited at 10:53

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Thread auto-archived as it is too large
Loading Notifications...