FabSwingers.com > Forums > Virus > Peter Hitchens
Peter Hitchens
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All of the media and social media have a great responsibility to promote safety and well-being, with restricted publication of anything that doesn't follow the current system to be limited to the greatest extent. It's certainly OK to question but not to promote going against scientific evidence. This same rag did that with many years of promoting the stopping the MMR vaccine, which has caused needless suffering and deaths of those who bought into their argument. They have never apologised. Too many gullible people are rabble roused by such pieces, with dire consequences, that are not driven by good journalism and expert inquiry. " When people come out with that nonsense on here they are ridiculed. This is a national newspaper probally read by 100,000s . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All of the media and social media have a great responsibility to promote safety and well-being, with restricted publication of anything that doesn't follow the current system to be limited to the greatest extent. It's certainly OK to question but not to promote going against scientific evidence. This same rag did that with many years of promoting the stopping the MMR vaccine, which has caused needless suffering and deaths of those who bought into their argument. They have never apologised. Too many gullible people are rabble roused by such pieces, with dire consequences, that are not driven by good journalism and expert inquiry. When people come out with that nonsense on here they are ridiculed. This is a national newspaper probally read by 100,000s ." Just goes to show the power the media have.... And because its in that trustworthy organ the daily mail... People will believe and spread it. So irresponsible. Opinion is one thing but let's all have our opinions when we stop dying and spreading this awful disease. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All of the media and social media have a great responsibility to promote safety and well-being, with restricted publication of anything that doesn't follow the current system to be limited to the greatest extent. It's certainly OK to question but not to promote going against scientific evidence. This same rag did that with many years of promoting the stopping the MMR vaccine, which has caused needless suffering and deaths of those who bought into their argument. They have never apologised. Too many gullible people are rabble roused by such pieces, with dire consequences, that are not driven by good journalism and expert inquiry. When people come out with that nonsense on here they are ridiculed. This is a national newspaper probally read by 100,000s . Just goes to show the power the media have.... And because its in that trustworthy organ the daily mail... People will believe and spread it. So irresponsible. Opinion is one thing but let's all have our opinions when we stop dying and spreading this awful disease. " Trustworthy like they were with Wakefield and MMR  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I never look at the daily mail website for obvious reasons, but I had a look today and the 3rd story down is a piece by peter Hitchens basically saying covid is exaggerating and arguing against lockdown. Even the half arsed lock down we have. I'm fully aware we have free speech in this country but this is one of the most well read websites in the country. Is it any wonder people are breaking the rules when a national newspaper is printing this? Toby young was another one who was saying covid was no worse than having a cold." It's the daily fail the se paper with a fixation on the Kardashians and Gemma whatever name is.. in other words anything to sell a story or a paper .. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When people can not put there point of view how far is this away from dictatorship tyranny ?" Are you aware that speech is constrained by law everywhere? Incitement to violence, defamation, hate speech in some places, constraints on some people from acting outside professional standards, and more. You're welcome. Happy tyranny  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When people can not put there point of view how far is this away from dictatorship tyranny ? Are you aware that speech is constrained by law everywhere? Incitement to violence, defamation, hate speech in some places, constraints on some people from acting outside professional standards, and more. You're welcome. Happy tyranny "Another one who can’t give there freedoms away quick enough | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Peter Hitchens speaks common sense along with Neil Oliver. Pity it’s virtually absent on here. " Freedom of speech does not exclude freedom of consequence. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When people can not put there point of view how far is this away from dictatorship tyranny ? Are you aware that speech is constrained by law everywhere? Incitement to violence, defamation, hate speech in some places, constraints on some people from acting outside professional standards, and more. You're welcome. Happy tyranny Another one who can’t give there freedoms away quick enough "I'm stating the position as it is 
If anywhere that constrains any speech is tyranny, then we all live in a tyrannical society
I mean, I thought words meant things, but hey. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All of the media and social media have a great responsibility to promote safety and well-being, with restricted publication of anything that doesn't follow the current system to be limited to the greatest extent. It's certainly OK to question but not to promote going against scientific evidence. This same rag did that with many years of promoting the stopping the MMR vaccine, which has caused needless suffering and deaths of those who bought into their argument. They have never apologised. Too many gullible people are rabble roused by such pieces, with dire consequences, that are not driven by good journalism and expert inquiry. "  i think the news and “opinion pieces” should have to come from separate publications to male it crystal clear to people which are which
remember when papers would only print information they could verify  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Everyone is entitled to an opinion just because it differs from your own doesn’t make it wrong, lockdown is destroying livelihoods and business the same businesses that pay tax to fund the nhs and all other public services, it the wealth generators who are suffering remember all government money comes from wealth generating businesses not public services, the basic economic fact is we need to get back to work " Absolutely | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When people can not put there point of view how far is this away from dictatorship tyranny ? Are you aware that speech is constrained by law everywhere? Incitement to violence, defamation, hate speech in some places, constraints on some people from acting outside professional standards, and more. You're welcome. Happy tyranny Another one who can’t give there freedoms away quick enough
I'm stating the position as it is
If anywhere that constrains any speech is tyranny, then we all live in a tyrannical society
I mean, I thought words meant things, but hey."Did Peter Hitchens break any law on what he said ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Everyone is entitled to an opinion just because it differs from your own doesn’t make it wrong, lockdown is destroying livelihoods and business the same businesses that pay tax to fund the nhs and all other public services, it the wealth generators who are suffering remember all government money comes from wealth generating businesses not public services, the basic economic fact is we need to get back to work Absolutely " Lockdowns will kill more people long-term than Covid ever will, that’s the bottom line and you still have idiots supporting it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Everyone is entitled to an opinion just because it differs from your own doesn’t make it wrong, lockdown is destroying livelihoods and business the same businesses that pay tax to fund the nhs and all other public services, it the wealth generators who are suffering remember all government money comes from wealth generating businesses not public services, the basic economic fact is we need to get back to work Absolutely Lockdowns will kill more people long-term than Covid ever will, that’s the bottom line and you still have idiots supporting it. " This is just completely false. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Peter Hitchens speaks common sense along with Neil Oliver. Pity it’s virtually absent on here. Freedom of speech does not exclude freedom of consequence." Freedom of speech is just that . People are allowed to make their own decisions and conclusions. Who should have the power to decide who can speak and who can't ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Everyone is entitled to an opinion just because it differs from your own doesn’t make it wrong, lockdown is destroying livelihoods and business the same businesses that pay tax to fund the nhs and all other public services, it the wealth generators who are suffering remember all government money comes from wealth generating businesses not public services, the basic economic fact is we need to get back to work " Opinions which differ from documented facts are dangerous and irresponsible. I consider lockdown a failure of policy and a damaging last resort. We could have avoided this. Part of the failure is losing the narrative through damaging lies. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Everyone is entitled to an opinion just because it differs from your own doesn’t make it wrong, lockdown is destroying livelihoods and business the same businesses that pay tax to fund the nhs and all other public services, it the wealth generators who are suffering remember all government money comes from wealth generating businesses not public services, the basic economic fact is we need to get back to work Absolutely Lockdowns will kill more people long-term than Covid ever will, that’s the bottom line and you still have idiots supporting it. " I'm not sure lockdowns kill more , but they do come at a very high price. And we won't know for years how high. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When people can not put there point of view how far is this away from dictatorship tyranny ? Are you aware that speech is constrained by law everywhere? Incitement to violence, defamation, hate speech in some places, constraints on some people from acting outside professional standards, and more. You're welcome. Happy tyranny Another one who can’t give there freedoms away quick enough
I'm stating the position as it is
If anywhere that constrains any speech is tyranny, then we all live in a tyrannical society
I mean, I thought words meant things, but hey. Did Peter Hitchens break any law on what he said ? "Not a clue. I'm not in the habit of seeking out idiots and giving them ad revenue. I'm stating that the law, *everywhere* restrains speech. That is fact. If you think that that means we live in a tyrannical society, then so does every human on earth. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When people can not put there point of view how far is this away from dictatorship tyranny ? Are you aware that speech is constrained by law everywhere? Incitement to violence, defamation, hate speech in some places, constraints on some people from acting outside professional standards, and more. You're welcome. Happy tyranny Another one who can’t give there freedoms away quick enough
I'm stating the position as it is
If anywhere that constrains any speech is tyranny, then we all live in a tyrannical society
I mean, I thought words meant things, but hey. Did Peter Hitchens break any law on what he said ? "Things can still be wrong, even if they aren't against the law to say. Freedom of speech works both ways. If Hitchens can say that science is wrong, and the lockdown should be scrapped. Surely scientifically literate people are also allowed to exercise their right to free speech and call him out on his bullshit too. Like, it's not a joke, it's not like he claimed West Brom will win the premier League. People could die as a result of reading and believing his article. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When people can not put there point of view how far is this away from dictatorship tyranny ? Are you aware that speech is constrained by law everywhere? Incitement to violence, defamation, hate speech in some places, constraints on some people from acting outside professional standards, and more. You're welcome. Happy tyranny Another one who can’t give there freedoms away quick enough
I'm stating the position as it is
If anywhere that constrains any speech is tyranny, then we all live in a tyrannical society
I mean, I thought words meant things, but hey. Did Peter Hitchens break any law on what he said ?
Things can still be wrong, even if they aren't against the law to say.
Freedom of speech works both ways. If Hitchens can say that science is wrong, and the lockdown should be scrapped. Surely scientifically literate people are also allowed to exercise their right to free speech and call him out on his bullshit too.
Like, it's not a joke, it's not like he claimed West Brom will win the premier League. People could die as a result of reading and believing his article. "Course the can call him out , but some want to end the right to an opinion which in our view is extremely dangerous road to go down | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Peter Hitchens speaks common sense along with Neil Oliver. Pity it’s virtually absent on here. Freedom of speech does not exclude freedom of consequence. Freedom of speech is just that . People are allowed to make their own decisions and conclusions. Who should have the power to decide who can speak and who can't ? " I mean, the law already does this. Also, who gets to decide that people can't react to what others say? Yesterday I got called a Nazi, for example. Am I allowed to think people who name call are unworthy of my time? Am I allowed to reply? Or must I accept that they have spoken, therefore what they have said is beyond reproach? Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from reaction or consequence. That's fucking nonsense. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Peter Hitchens speaks common sense along with Neil Oliver. Pity it’s virtually absent on here. Freedom of speech does not exclude freedom of consequence. Freedom of speech is just that . People are allowed to make their own decisions and conclusions. Who should have the power to decide who can speak and who can't ? " I haven't said they can't, But they alsi have to accept they aren't immune from freedom of consequence having done so. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When people can not put there point of view how far is this away from dictatorship tyranny ? Are you aware that speech is constrained by law everywhere? Incitement to violence, defamation, hate speech in some places, constraints on some people from acting outside professional standards, and more. You're welcome. Happy tyranny Another one who can’t give there freedoms away quick enough
I'm stating the position as it is
If anywhere that constrains any speech is tyranny, then we all live in a tyrannical society
I mean, I thought words meant things, but hey. Did Peter Hitchens break any law on what he said ?
Things can still be wrong, even if they aren't against the law to say.
Freedom of speech works both ways. If Hitchens can say that science is wrong, and the lockdown should be scrapped. Surely scientifically literate people are also allowed to exercise their right to free speech and call him out on his bullshit too.
Like, it's not a joke, it's not like he claimed West Brom will win the premier League. People could die as a result of reading and believing his article. Course the can call him out , but some want to end the right to an opinion which in our view is extremely dangerous road to go down "Yeah everyone has a right to an opinion. I guess the problem is that now-a-days some people are too stupid to be able to tell which opinion is worth listening too. People think that virologists aren't worth listening to on matters of the virus. But that Hitchens is. And people could die. I can see why people are angry at the Daily Mail for publishing this kind of shit. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Peter Hitchens speaks common sense along with Neil Oliver. Pity it’s virtually absent on here. Freedom of speech does not exclude freedom of consequence. Freedom of speech is just that . People are allowed to make their own decisions and conclusions. Who should have the power to decide who can speak and who can't ? I haven't said they can't, But they alsi have to accept they aren't immune from freedom of consequence having done so." And they call us the snowflakes | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Peter Hitchens speaks common sense along with Neil Oliver. Pity it’s virtually absent on here. Freedom of speech does not exclude freedom of consequence. Freedom of speech is just that . People are allowed to make their own decisions and conclusions. Who should have the power to decide who can speak and who can't ? " People aren't allowed to make all their own decisions without consequences though. If you decide you want to drive on the right hand side of the road. You'll likely end up in trouble and could endanger lives. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Everyone is entitled to an opinion just because it differs from your own doesn’t make it wrong, lockdown is destroying livelihoods and business the same businesses that pay tax to fund the nhs and all other public services, it the wealth generators who are suffering remember all government money comes from wealth generating businesses not public services, the basic economic fact is we need to get back to work Absolutely Lockdowns will kill more people long-term than Covid ever will, that’s the bottom line and you still have idiots supporting it. " So then the obvious thing to do is everything you can to reduce the time of lockdown not ignore it so infections spread. Why don’t anti lockdown people get this? Surely it’s MORE of a reason to stay home not less. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Everyone is entitled to an opinion just because it differs from your own doesn’t make it wrong, lockdown is destroying livelihoods and business the same businesses that pay tax to fund the nhs and all other public services, it the wealth generators who are suffering remember all government money comes from wealth generating businesses not public services, the basic economic fact is we need to get back to work Absolutely Lockdowns will kill more people long-term than Covid ever will, that’s the bottom line and you still have idiots supporting it. So then the obvious thing to do is everything you can to reduce the time of lockdown not ignore it so infections spread. Why don’t anti lockdown people get this? Surely it’s MORE of a reason to stay home not less." You'd think... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Peter Hitchens speaks common sense along with Neil Oliver. Pity it’s virtually absent on here. Freedom of speech does not exclude freedom of consequence. Freedom of speech is just that . People are allowed to make their own decisions and conclusions. Who should have the power to decide who can speak and who can't ? People aren't allowed to make all their own decisions without consequences though. If you decide you want to drive on the right hand side of the road. You'll likely end up in trouble and could endanger lives. " And even in the US (which allows much more speech at law than the UK) speech which incites violence is not protected. While spreading Covid is not violence per se, words can incite harmful action. Words have power. Words influence behaviour and contribute to consequences. With power *should* come responsibility. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Peter Hitchens speaks common sense along with Neil Oliver. Pity it’s virtually absent on here. Freedom of speech does not exclude freedom of consequence. Freedom of speech is just that . People are allowed to make their own decisions and conclusions. Who should have the power to decide who can speak and who can't ? People aren't allowed to make all their own decisions without consequences though. If you decide you want to drive on the right hand side of the road. You'll likely end up in trouble and could endanger lives. " That’s is a ridiculous comparison, Peter Hitchens has expressed an opinion that many disagree with but he’s not broken any laws it’s about opinions | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Peter Hitchens speaks common sense along with Neil Oliver. Pity it’s virtually absent on here. Freedom of speech does not exclude freedom of consequence. Freedom of speech is just that . People are allowed to make their own decisions and conclusions. Who should have the power to decide who can speak and who can't ? I haven't said they can't, But they alsi have to accept they aren't immune from freedom of consequence having done so. And they call us the snowflakes "That response makes absolutely no sense at all? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When people can not put there point of view how far is this away from dictatorship tyranny ? Are you aware that speech is constrained by law everywhere? Incitement to violence, defamation, hate speech in some places, constraints on some people from acting outside professional standards, and more. You're welcome. Happy tyranny Another one who can’t give there freedoms away quick enough
I'm stating the position as it is
If anywhere that constrains any speech is tyranny, then we all live in a tyrannical society
I mean, I thought words meant things, but hey. Did Peter Hitchens break any law on what he said ?
Things can still be wrong, even if they aren't against the law to say.
Freedom of speech works both ways. If Hitchens can say that science is wrong, and the lockdown should be scrapped. Surely scientifically literate people are also allowed to exercise their right to free speech and call him out on his bullshit too.
Like, it's not a joke, it's not like he claimed West Brom will win the premier League. People could die as a result of reading and believing his article. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Peter Hitchens speaks common sense along with Neil Oliver. Pity it’s virtually absent on here. Freedom of speech does not exclude freedom of consequence. Freedom of speech is just that . People are allowed to make their own decisions and conclusions. Who should have the power to decide who can speak and who can't ? People aren't allowed to make all their own decisions without consequences though. If you decide you want to drive on the right hand side of the road. You'll likely end up in trouble and could endanger lives. That’s is a ridiculous comparison, Peter Hitchens has expressed an opinion that many disagree with but he’s not broken any laws it’s about opinions " Are you intimately aware with the law on speech in the UK? Do you know he's not broken any laws, or do you falsely believe that all speech is sacrosanct under UK law? I'm no expert on freedom of expression in the UK, but I am aware that there are constraints on what can be said at law in the UK. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Peter Hitchens speaks common sense along with Neil Oliver. Pity it’s virtually absent on here. Freedom of speech does not exclude freedom of consequence. Freedom of speech is just that . People are allowed to make their own decisions and conclusions. Who should have the power to decide who can speak and who can't ? I haven't said they can't, But they alsi have to accept they aren't immune from freedom of consequence having done so. And they call us the snowflakes
That response makes absolutely no sense at all?"Apologies. This is a common right wing canard, conflating freedom/freedom of expression with freedom from response or consequences. They can say what they like. Apparently. And any response or consequence is tyranny. (They do not offer the same courtesy in reverse, which is strange) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Peter Hitchens speaks common sense along with Neil Oliver. Pity it’s virtually absent on here. Freedom of speech does not exclude freedom of consequence. Freedom of speech is just that . People are allowed to make their own decisions and conclusions. Who should have the power to decide who can speak and who can't ? People aren't allowed to make all their own decisions without consequences though. If you decide you want to drive on the right hand side of the road. You'll likely end up in trouble and could endanger lives. That’s is a ridiculous comparison, Peter Hitchens has expressed an opinion that many disagree with but he’s not broken any laws it’s about opinions " I was addressing the point about actions. I'm not comparing Hitchens's article with anything. I do believe he has the right to say whatever he wants. But I don't think the Daily Mail should be obliged to publish anything he writes, they could have chosen not to publish it. I do blame the Daily Mail for publishing it. Would they have published an article telling people to drive on the wrong side of the road? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Peter Hitchens speaks common sense along with Neil Oliver. Pity it’s virtually absent on here. Freedom of speech does not exclude freedom of consequence. Freedom of speech is just that . People are allowed to make their own decisions and conclusions. Who should have the power to decide who can speak and who can't ? People aren't allowed to make all their own decisions without consequences though. If you decide you want to drive on the right hand side of the road. You'll likely end up in trouble and could endanger lives. That’s is a ridiculous comparison, Peter Hitchens has expressed an opinion that many disagree with but he’s not broken any laws it’s about opinions Are you intimately aware with the law on speech in the UK? Do you know he's not broken any laws, or do you falsely believe that all speech is sacrosanct under UK law? I'm no expert on freedom of expression in the UK, but I am aware that there are constraints on what can be said at law in the UK." We don’t obviously know what you can and can’t say to the letter, but Peter Hitchens will not have said anything you can’t he knows the Establishment is gunning for him | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I never look at the daily mail website for obvious reasons, but I had a look today and the 3rd story down is a piece by peter Hitchens basically saying covid is exaggerating and arguing against lockdown. Even the half arsed lock down we have. I'm fully aware we have free speech in this country but this is one of the most well read websites in the country. Is it any wonder people are breaking the rules when a national newspaper is printing this? Toby young was another one who was saying covid was no worse than having a cold." I'm more shocked that you are saying that you never look at the daily mail lol. Hitchens has always been a *&^*. Pay him no heed. 100's of ravers who need locking up in London last night it more important. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Peter Hitchens speaks common sense along with Neil Oliver. Pity it’s virtually absent on here. Freedom of speech does not exclude freedom of consequence. Freedom of speech is just that . People are allowed to make their own decisions and conclusions. Who should have the power to decide who can speak and who can't ? People aren't allowed to make all their own decisions without consequences though. If you decide you want to drive on the right hand side of the road. You'll likely end up in trouble and could endanger lives. " Regarding what someone says.. There's no speech code and test we must take . Who decides what can and can't be said , regarding the subjects in this thread .? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Peter Hitchens speaks common sense along with Neil Oliver. Pity it’s virtually absent on here. Freedom of speech does not exclude freedom of consequence. Freedom of speech is just that . People are allowed to make their own decisions and conclusions. Who should have the power to decide who can speak and who can't ? I haven't said they can't, But they alsi have to accept they aren't immune from freedom of consequence having done so. And they call us the snowflakes
That response makes absolutely no sense at all?
Apologies.
This is a common right wing canard, conflating freedom/freedom of expression with freedom from response or consequences.
They can say what they like. Apparently. And any response or consequence is tyranny. (They do not offer the same courtesy in reverse, which is strange)" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Peter Hitchens speaks common sense along with Neil Oliver. Pity it’s virtually absent on here. Freedom of speech does not exclude freedom of consequence. Freedom of speech is just that . People are allowed to make their own decisions and conclusions. Who should have the power to decide who can speak and who can't ? People aren't allowed to make all their own decisions without consequences though. If you decide you want to drive on the right hand side of the road. You'll likely end up in trouble and could endanger lives. Regarding what someone says.. There's no speech code and test we must take . Who decides what can and can't be said , regarding the subjects in this thread .?" I'm in favour of free speech. I'm not in favour of the Daily Mail publishing it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Peter Hitchens speaks common sense along with Neil Oliver. Pity it’s virtually absent on here. Freedom of speech does not exclude freedom of consequence. Freedom of speech is just that . People are allowed to make their own decisions and conclusions. Who should have the power to decide who can speak and who can't ? People aren't allowed to make all their own decisions without consequences though. If you decide you want to drive on the right hand side of the road. You'll likely end up in trouble and could endanger lives. That’s is a ridiculous comparison, Peter Hitchens has expressed an opinion that many disagree with but he’s not broken any laws it’s about opinions Are you intimately aware with the law on speech in the UK? Do you know he's not broken any laws, or do you falsely believe that all speech is sacrosanct under UK law? I'm no expert on freedom of expression in the UK, but I am aware that there are constraints on what can be said at law in the UK. We don’t obviously know what you can and can’t say to the letter, but Peter Hitchens will not have said anything you can’t he knows the Establishment is gunning for him "
Yeah ok | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I'm in favour of free speech. I'm not in favour of the Daily Mail publishing it." hahaha. Now that really made me laugh out loud. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Peter Hitchens speaks common sense along with Neil Oliver. Pity it’s virtually absent on here. Freedom of speech does not exclude freedom of consequence. Freedom of speech is just that . People are allowed to make their own decisions and conclusions. Who should have the power to decide who can speak and who can't ? People aren't allowed to make all their own decisions without consequences though. If you decide you want to drive on the right hand side of the road. You'll likely end up in trouble and could endanger lives. Regarding what someone says.. There's no speech code and test we must take . Who decides what can and can't be said , regarding the subjects in this thread .?" The law. Which may or may not be tested in court. You're welcome. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Peter Hitchens speaks common sense along with Neil Oliver. Pity it’s virtually absent on here. Freedom of speech does not exclude freedom of consequence. Freedom of speech is just that . People are allowed to make their own decisions and conclusions. Who should have the power to decide who can speak and who can't ? I haven't said they can't, But they alsi have to accept they aren't immune from freedom of consequence having done so. And they call us the snowflakes
That response makes absolutely no sense at all?
Apologies.
This is a common right wing canard, conflating freedom/freedom of expression with freedom from response or consequences.
They can say what they like. Apparently. And any response or consequence is tyranny. (They do not offer the same courtesy in reverse, which is strange)
"Banning free speech has been imposed by both left and right wing governments..around the world . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I'm in favour of free speech. I'm not in favour of the Daily Mail publishing it. hahaha. Now that really made me laugh out loud." I don't think newspapers are obligated to publish anything. Not publishing an opinion piece is a legitimate choice. Hitchens should say what he wants, but they can choose to print it, or not. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Peter Hitchens speaks common sense along with Neil Oliver. Pity it’s virtually absent on here. Freedom of speech does not exclude freedom of consequence. Freedom of speech is just that . People are allowed to make their own decisions and conclusions. Who should have the power to decide who can speak and who can't ? I haven't said they can't, But they alsi have to accept they aren't immune from freedom of consequence having done so. And they call us the snowflakes
That response makes absolutely no sense at all?
Apologies.
This is a common right wing canard, conflating freedom/freedom of expression with freedom from response or consequences.
They can say what they like. Apparently. And any response or consequence is tyranny. (They do not offer the same courtesy in reverse, which is strange)
Banning free speech has been imposed by both left and right wing governments..around the world ."I'm talking about a current canard, not the history of everything ever. Yes, I agree. And all governments everywhere still restrain speech to greater or lesser extent. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I'm in favour of free speech. I'm not in favour of the Daily Mail publishing it. hahaha. Now that really made me laugh out loud. I don't think newspapers are obligated to publish anything. Not publishing an opinion piece is a legitimate choice. Hitchens should say what he wants, but they can choose to print it, or not." I think that publications *should* (personal opinion alert) be bound by social responsibility in what they publish. I am not sure where the line is on what they can or cannot (legal line) say, but I know such lines exist. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"yet the conservative and unionist party government attempt to impose an absolute ban on left thought and writings in UK schools." Yup
But that's different because reasons.
And the new criminal laws on statues adding nothing but culture war.
Right wing outrage is appropriate and left wing is tyrannical | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Peter Hitchens speaks common sense along with Neil Oliver. Pity it’s virtually absent on here. Freedom of speech does not exclude freedom of consequence." I agree. Rights bring obligations | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Everyone is entitled to an opinion just because it differs from your own doesn’t make it wrong, lockdown is destroying livelihoods and business the same businesses that pay tax to fund the nhs and all other public services, it the wealth generators who are suffering remember all government money comes from wealth generating businesses not public services, the basic economic fact is we need to get back to work " So the public sector pays no tax? The teachers and lecturers don't educate which is a benefit societally.. The NHS doesn't save lives of people who also contribute.. The fire service don't intervene to stop someone's business burning down or being flooded.. Etc etc.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Peter Hitchens speaks common sense along with Neil Oliver. Pity it’s virtually absent on here. Freedom of speech does not exclude freedom of consequence. Freedom of speech is just that . People are allowed to make their own decisions and conclusions. Who should have the power to decide who can speak and who can't ? People aren't allowed to make all their own decisions without consequences though. If you decide you want to drive on the right hand side of the road. You'll likely end up in trouble and could endanger lives. That’s is a ridiculous comparison, Peter Hitchens has expressed an opinion that many disagree with but he’s not broken any laws it’s about opinions I was addressing the point about actions. I'm not comparing Hitchens's article with anything. I do believe he has the right to say whatever he wants. But I don't think the Daily Mail should be obliged to publish anything he writes, they could have chosen not to publish it. I do blame the Daily Mail for publishing it. Would they have published an article telling people to drive on the wrong side of the road?" I find it funny they write disparaging stories about anti vax protestors but are happy to give major coverage to people who think the virus is over exaggerated. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"fascist culture warriors? "Davis is proposing new laws to protect statues because BLM. They add *nothing* to existing criminal liability. It's a bit like, in Australia, Scott Morrison having a fucking shit fit over a cricket match being advertised as "January 26" rather than Australia Day. It's trying to stir up right wing feelings for no fucking reason. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Peter Hitchens speaks common sense along with Neil Oliver. Pity it’s virtually absent on here. Freedom of speech does not exclude freedom of consequence. Freedom of speech is just that . People are allowed to make their own decisions and conclusions. Who should have the power to decide who can speak and who can't ? People aren't allowed to make all their own decisions without consequences though. If you decide you want to drive on the right hand side of the road. You'll likely end up in trouble and could endanger lives. That’s is a ridiculous comparison, Peter Hitchens has expressed an opinion that many disagree with but he’s not broken any laws it’s about opinions Are you intimately aware with the law on speech in the UK? Do you know he's not broken any laws, or do you falsely believe that all speech is sacrosanct under UK law? I'm no expert on freedom of expression in the UK, but I am aware that there are constraints on what can be said at law in the UK. We don’t obviously know what you can and can’t say to the letter, but Peter Hitchens will not have said anything you can’t he knows the Establishment is gunning for him " Can you explain to me how the daily mail is anti establishment? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Everyone is entitled to an opinion just because it differs from your own doesn’t make it wrong, lockdown is destroying livelihoods and business the same businesses that pay tax to fund the nhs and all other public services, it the wealth generators who are suffering remember all government money comes from wealth generating businesses not public services, the basic economic fact is we need to get back to work Absolutely Lockdowns will kill more people long-term than Covid ever will, that’s the bottom line and you still have idiots supporting it. So then the obvious thing to do is everything you can to reduce the time of lockdown not ignore it so infections spread. Why don’t anti lockdown people get this? Surely it’s MORE of a reason to stay home not less." And it’s comments like this which I just despair about... No words. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I never look at the daily mail website for obvious reasons, but I had a look today and the 3rd story down is a piece by peter Hitchens basically saying covid is exaggerating and arguing against lockdown. Even the half arsed lock down we have. I'm fully aware we have free speech in this country but this is one of the most well read websites in the country. Is it any wonder people are breaking the rules when a national newspaper is printing this? Toby young was another one who was saying covid was no worse than having a cold. I'm more shocked that you are saying that you never look at the daily mail lol. Hitchens has always been a *&^*. Pay him no heed. 100's of ravers who need locking up in London last night it more important." But arent they doing what he Is suggesting? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Peter Hitchens speaks common sense along with Neil Oliver. Pity it’s virtually absent on here. Freedom of speech does not exclude freedom of consequence. Freedom of speech is just that . People are allowed to make their own decisions and conclusions. Who should have the power to decide who can speak and who can't ? People aren't allowed to make all their own decisions without consequences though. If you decide you want to drive on the right hand side of the road. You'll likely end up in trouble and could endanger lives. Regarding what someone says.. There's no speech code and test we must take . Who decides what can and can't be said , regarding the subjects in this thread .? I'm in favour of free speech. I'm not in favour of the Daily Mail publishing it."  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Surely its a win win scenario if Daily mail readers follow Hitchens and they all get Covid and kick the bucket. Thats less Daily Mail readers and the Daily Mail goes out of business. Obviously sensible people should be staying away from Daily Mail readers which one would assume sensible people have always done." Even if the only consequences of this is that stupid people die, I'm against it because I don't want people to suffer for their stupidity. Or their families or friends. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Peter Hitchens speaks common sense along with Neil Oliver. Pity it’s virtually absent on here. Freedom of speech does not exclude freedom of consequence. Freedom of speech is just that . People are allowed to make their own decisions and conclusions. Who should have the power to decide who can speak and who can't ? People aren't allowed to make all their own decisions without consequences though. If you decide you want to drive on the right hand side of the road. You'll likely end up in trouble and could endanger lives. That’s is a ridiculous comparison, Peter Hitchens has expressed an opinion that many disagree with but he’s not broken any laws it’s about opinions Are you intimately aware with the law on speech in the UK? Do you know he's not broken any laws, or do you falsely believe that all speech is sacrosanct under UK law? I'm no expert on freedom of expression in the UK, but I am aware that there are constraints on what can be said at law in the UK. We don’t obviously know what you can and can’t say to the letter, but Peter Hitchens will not have said anything you can’t he knows the Establishment is gunning for him Can you explain to me how the daily mail is anti establishment?" Never said the Daily Mail was | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Surely its a win win scenario if Daily mail readers follow Hitchens and they all get Covid and kick the bucket. Thats less Daily Mail readers and the Daily Mail goes out of business. Obviously sensible people should be staying away from Daily Mail readers which one would assume sensible people have always done." Regardless of where you sit on this debate. That's an absolutely fucking disgusting thing to say | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Surely its a win win scenario if Daily mail readers follow Hitchens and they all get Covid and kick the bucket. Thats less Daily Mail readers and the Daily Mail goes out of business. Obviously sensible people should be staying away from Daily Mail readers which one would assume sensible people have always done. Regardless of where you sit on this debate. That's an absolutely fucking disgusting thing to say "Hard agree. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Surely its a win win scenario if Daily mail readers follow Hitchens and they all get Covid and kick the bucket. Thats less Daily Mail readers and the Daily Mail goes out of business. Obviously sensible people should be staying away from Daily Mail readers which one would assume sensible people have always done." Indeed... the riff raff .. not like us guardian readers. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Peter Hitchens speaks common sense along with Neil Oliver. Pity it’s virtually absent on here. Freedom of speech does not exclude freedom of consequence. Freedom of speech is just that . People are allowed to make their own decisions and conclusions. Who should have the power to decide who can speak and who can't ? People aren't allowed to make all their own decisions without consequences though. If you decide you want to drive on the right hand side of the road. You'll likely end up in trouble and could endanger lives. That’s is a ridiculous comparison, Peter Hitchens has expressed an opinion that many disagree with but he’s not broken any laws it’s about opinions Are you intimately aware with the law on speech in the UK? Do you know he's not broken any laws, or do you falsely believe that all speech is sacrosanct under UK law? I'm no expert on freedom of expression in the UK, but I am aware that there are constraints on what can be said at law in the UK. We don’t obviously know what you can and can’t say to the letter, but Peter Hitchens will not have said anything you can’t he knows the Establishment is gunning for him Can you explain to me how the daily mail is anti establishment?Never said the Daily Mail was " You said the establishment was gunning for him yet his article is posted in a right leaning national newspaper..which surely implies the mail is anti establishment? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Peter Hitchens speaks common sense along with Neil Oliver. Pity it’s virtually absent on here. Freedom of speech does not exclude freedom of consequence. Freedom of speech is just that . People are allowed to make their own decisions and conclusions. Who should have the power to decide who can speak and who can't ? People aren't allowed to make all their own decisions without consequences though. If you decide you want to drive on the right hand side of the road. You'll likely end up in trouble and could endanger lives. That’s is a ridiculous comparison, Peter Hitchens has expressed an opinion that many disagree with but he’s not broken any laws it’s about opinions Are you intimately aware with the law on speech in the UK? Do you know he's not broken any laws, or do you falsely believe that all speech is sacrosanct under UK law? I'm no expert on freedom of expression in the UK, but I am aware that there are constraints on what can be said at law in the UK. We don’t obviously know what you can and can’t say to the letter, but Peter Hitchens will not have said anything you can’t he knows the Establishment is gunning for him Can you explain to me how the daily mail is anti establishment?Never said the Daily Mail was You said the establishment was gunning for him yet his article is posted in a right leaning national newspaper..which surely implies the mail is anti establishment?" The clue in what we said was Gunning for Him | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Peter Hitchens speaks common sense along with Neil Oliver. Pity it’s virtually absent on here. Freedom of speech does not exclude freedom of consequence. Freedom of speech is just that . People are allowed to make their own decisions and conclusions. Who should have the power to decide who can speak and who can't ? People aren't allowed to make all their own decisions without consequences though. If you decide you want to drive on the right hand side of the road. You'll likely end up in trouble and could endanger lives. That’s is a ridiculous comparison, Peter Hitchens has expressed an opinion that many disagree with but he’s not broken any laws it’s about opinions Are you intimately aware with the law on speech in the UK? Do you know he's not broken any laws, or do you falsely believe that all speech is sacrosanct under UK law? I'm no expert on freedom of expression in the UK, but I am aware that there are constraints on what can be said at law in the UK. We don’t obviously know what you can and can’t say to the letter, but Peter Hitchens will not have said anything you can’t he knows the Establishment is gunning for him Can you explain to me how the daily mail is anti establishment?Never said the Daily Mail was You said the establishment was gunning for him yet his article is posted in a right leaning national newspaper..which surely implies the mail is anti establishment? The clue in what we said was Gunning for Him " So who is guning for him exactly? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Peter Hitchens speaks common sense along with Neil Oliver. Pity it’s virtually absent on here. Freedom of speech does not exclude freedom of consequence. Freedom of speech is just that . People are allowed to make their own decisions and conclusions. Who should have the power to decide who can speak and who can't ? People aren't allowed to make all their own decisions without consequences though. If you decide you want to drive on the right hand side of the road. You'll likely end up in trouble and could endanger lives. That’s is a ridiculous comparison, Peter Hitchens has expressed an opinion that many disagree with but he’s not broken any laws it’s about opinions Are you intimately aware with the law on speech in the UK? Do you know he's not broken any laws, or do you falsely believe that all speech is sacrosanct under UK law? I'm no expert on freedom of expression in the UK, but I am aware that there are constraints on what can be said at law in the UK. We don’t obviously know what you can and can’t say to the letter, but Peter Hitchens will not have said anything you can’t he knows the Establishment is gunning for him Can you explain to me how the daily mail is anti establishment?Never said the Daily Mail was You said the establishment was gunning for him yet his article is posted in a right leaning national newspaper..which surely implies the mail is anti establishment? The clue in what we said was Gunning for Him So who is guning for him exactly?" He has had many arguments with politicians over the years doubt they like him , so if he slips up they probably would , and that’s the left and right | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Peter Hitchens speaks common sense along with Neil Oliver. Pity it’s virtually absent on here. Freedom of speech does not exclude freedom of consequence. Freedom of speech is just that . People are allowed to make their own decisions and conclusions. Who should have the power to decide who can speak and who can't ? People aren't allowed to make all their own decisions without consequences though. If you decide you want to drive on the right hand side of the road. You'll likely end up in trouble and could endanger lives. That’s is a ridiculous comparison, Peter Hitchens has expressed an opinion that many disagree with but he’s not broken any laws it’s about opinions Are you intimately aware with the law on speech in the UK? Do you know he's not broken any laws, or do you falsely believe that all speech is sacrosanct under UK law? I'm no expert on freedom of expression in the UK, but I am aware that there are constraints on what can be said at law in the UK. We don’t obviously know what you can and can’t say to the letter, but Peter Hitchens will not have said anything you can’t he knows the Establishment is gunning for him Can you explain to me how the daily mail is anti establishment?Never said the Daily Mail was You said the establishment was gunning for him yet his article is posted in a right leaning national newspaper..which surely implies the mail is anti establishment? The clue in what we said was Gunning for Him So who is guning for him exactly? He has had many arguments with politicians over the years doubt they like him , so if he slips up they probably would , and that’s the left and right " Then maybe he should be aware of his legal obligations and make sure he doesn't slip up, like everyone should | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Peter Hitchens speaks common sense along with Neil Oliver. Pity it’s virtually absent on here. Freedom of speech does not exclude freedom of consequence. Freedom of speech is just that . People are allowed to make their own decisions and conclusions. Who should have the power to decide who can speak and who can't ? People aren't allowed to make all their own decisions without consequences though. If you decide you want to drive on the right hand side of the road. You'll likely end up in trouble and could endanger lives. That’s is a ridiculous comparison, Peter Hitchens has expressed an opinion that many disagree with but he’s not broken any laws it’s about opinions Are you intimately aware with the law on speech in the UK? Do you know he's not broken any laws, or do you falsely believe that all speech is sacrosanct under UK law? I'm no expert on freedom of expression in the UK, but I am aware that there are constraints on what can be said at law in the UK. We don’t obviously know what you can and can’t say to the letter, but Peter Hitchens will not have said anything you can’t he knows the Establishment is gunning for him Can you explain to me how the daily mail is anti establishment?Never said the Daily Mail was You said the establishment was gunning for him yet his article is posted in a right leaning national newspaper..which surely implies the mail is anti establishment? The clue in what we said was Gunning for Him So who is guning for him exactly? He has had many arguments with politicians over the years doubt they like him , so if he slips up they probably would , and that’s the left and right Then maybe he should be aware of his legal obligations and make sure he doesn't slip up, like everyone should "He won’t slip up unless censorship curtails freedom of expression | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Peter Hitchens speaks common sense along with Neil Oliver. Pity it’s virtually absent on here. Freedom of speech does not exclude freedom of consequence. Freedom of speech is just that . People are allowed to make their own decisions and conclusions. Who should have the power to decide who can speak and who can't ? People aren't allowed to make all their own decisions without consequences though. If you decide you want to drive on the right hand side of the road. You'll likely end up in trouble and could endanger lives. That’s is a ridiculous comparison, Peter Hitchens has expressed an opinion that many disagree with but he’s not broken any laws it’s about opinions Are you intimately aware with the law on speech in the UK? Do you know he's not broken any laws, or do you falsely believe that all speech is sacrosanct under UK law? I'm no expert on freedom of expression in the UK, but I am aware that there are constraints on what can be said at law in the UK. We don’t obviously know what you can and can’t say to the letter, but Peter Hitchens will not have said anything you can’t he knows the Establishment is gunning for him Can you explain to me how the daily mail is anti establishment?Never said the Daily Mail was You said the establishment was gunning for him yet his article is posted in a right leaning national newspaper..which surely implies the mail is anti establishment? The clue in what we said was Gunning for Him So who is guning for him exactly? He has had many arguments with politicians over the years doubt they like him , so if he slips up they probably would , and that’s the left and right Then maybe he should be aware of his legal obligations and make sure he doesn't slip up, like everyone should He won’t slip up unless censorship curtails freedom of expression "Like the tyranny of freedom of expression being limited in everywhere in the world, and this not being anything new? Lol | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All of the media and social media have a great responsibility to promote safety and well-being, with restricted publication of anything that doesn't follow the current system to be limited to the greatest extent. It's certainly OK to question but not to promote going against scientific evidence. This same rag did that with many years of promoting the stopping the MMR vaccine, which has caused needless suffering and deaths of those who bought into their argument. They have never apologised. Too many gullible people are rabble roused by such pieces, with dire consequences, that are not driven by good journalism and expert inquiry. i think the news and “opinion pieces” should have to come from separate publications to male it crystal clear to people which are which
remember when papers would only print information they could verify "When they reported the news rather than created the news. And when editors were held accountable. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Peter Hitchens speaks common sense along with Neil Oliver. Pity it’s virtually absent on here. Freedom of speech does not exclude freedom of consequence." True, and advocating lockdown, means you are advocating the huge collateral damage further down the line. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" When they reported the news rather than created the news. And when editors were held accountable. " Bloody accountability would be good. Not "you must only promote the message of the Dear Leader". But "there's a body of evidence, there are verifiable facts, and wildly diverting from that may contribute to adverse effects. Which could be subject to investigation" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Peter Hitchens speaks common sense along with Neil Oliver. Pity it’s virtually absent on here. Freedom of speech does not exclude freedom of consequence. True, and advocating lockdown, means you are advocating the huge collateral damage further down the line." If anyone believes I've done anything wrong, I'll speak to the appropriate authorities and/or answer any legal summons My conscience is completely and utterly clear. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Everyone is entitled to an opinion just because it differs from your own doesn’t make it wrong, lockdown is destroying livelihoods and business the same businesses that pay tax to fund the nhs and all other public services, it the wealth generators who are suffering remember all government money comes from wealth generating businesses not public services, the basic economic fact is we need to get back to work Absolutely Lockdowns will kill more people long-term than Covid ever will, that’s the bottom line and you still have idiots supporting it. " "idiots"? And you see that's where anything you say after that loses credibility. Insulting those with a different opinion isn't a way to win an argument it just fosters further division. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Peter Hitchens speaks common sense along with Neil Oliver. Pity it’s virtually absent on here. " Plenty of sheeple believe what the MSM and government tell them unfortunately! Still, look on the brightside, we have eradicated the flu this winter!!!!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Peter Hitchens speaks common sense along with Neil Oliver. Pity it’s virtually absent on here. Plenty of sheeple believe what the MSM and government tell them unfortunately! Still, look on the brightside, we have eradicated the flu this winter!!!!! " Interesting how many brave noble individual truth tellers spout identical lines. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Peter: the obtuse mans Christopher" Ha! Yes, I agree. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Everyone is entitled to an opinion just because it differs from your own doesn’t make it wrong, lockdown is destroying livelihoods and business the same businesses that pay tax to fund the nhs and all other public services, it the wealth generators who are suffering remember all government money comes from wealth generating businesses not public services, the basic economic fact is we need to get back to work Absolutely Lockdowns will kill more people long-term than Covid ever will, that’s the bottom line and you still have idiots supporting it. So then the obvious thing to do is everything you can to reduce the time of lockdown not ignore it so infections spread. Why don’t anti lockdown people get this? Surely it’s MORE of a reason to stay home not less." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Thought I would read the article as seeing some of the alarmist posts on here I was expecting something as provocative as the satanic verses. Whilst I don’t agree with it. It’s not exactly lighting the blue touch paper. All this knicker twisting. "Same. Hence why I mentioned the Brendan O Neil podcast. Very tame and it’s triggered so many people. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The truth of it is no body will know if lockdown was the right thing to do or not until there’s a full public enquiry which won’t happen for a long long time. By then we’ll have a good assessment of the fallout, both from covid and the economic damage from lockdown. Until then everyone’s just screaming into the wind " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Daily mail readers....says it all....." Yup. Just don't read it lol. It's funny that people scream I suppose you read that in the Daily Mail then quote a story from the daily mail and pretend it means anything. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Thought I would read the article as seeing some of the alarmist posts on here I was expecting something as provocative as the satanic verses. Whilst I don’t agree with it. It’s not exactly lighting the blue touch paper. All this knicker twisting.
Same. Hence why I mentioned the Brendan O Neil podcast. Very tame and it’s triggered so many people. "I find it hilarious that one side is screaming about tyranny and freedom and it's the other one that's "triggered". But typical, again. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Daily mail readers....says it all..... Yup. Just don't read it lol. It's funny that people scream I suppose you read that in the Daily Mail then quote a story from the daily mail and pretend it means anything." Don't you think Daily Mail readers deserve better? The actions of people who read this article, decide to believe it, and then spread the virus, will impact others too. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Daily mail readers....says it all..... Yup. Just don't read it lol. It's funny that people scream I suppose you read that in the Daily Mail then quote a story from the daily mail and pretend it means anything. Don't you think Daily Mail readers deserve better? The actions of people who read this article, decide to believe it, and then spread the virus, will impact others too." I certainly do. They don't deserve to suffer because of the irresponsible stuff they're reading. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hitchens has appeared on Question Time a few times. He's a professional provocateur, a man of people. That is if by people you mean the privately educated and right wing." Funny how that goes | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Daily mail readers....says it all..... Yup. Just don't read it lol. It's funny that people scream I suppose you read that in the Daily Mail then quote a story from the daily mail and pretend it means anything." That doesn't make any sense? Everyone knows the daily mail has its own agenda but like I said earlier they see fit to demonize anti vax protestors but give headline coverage to a man who thinks the disease is over exaggerated. How does that work? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ad hominem... Attack the person rather that debate the argument. Label those who disagree as Daily Fail readers... I am old enough to remember when the Sun readers were branded as idiots but the rag outsold the Times by 8-1. There is nothing as intolerant as the liberal left in my view "
Yes. That's what's going on here
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Daily mail readers....says it all..... Yup. Just don't read it lol. It's funny that people scream I suppose you read that in the Daily Mail then quote a story from the daily mail and pretend it means anything. Don't you think Daily Mail readers deserve better? The actions of people who read this article, decide to believe it, and then spread the virus, will impact others too. I certainly do. They don't deserve to suffer because of the irresponsible stuff they're reading." I agree comrade.. let them not stray from the narrative or there will be consequences... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Daily mail readers....says it all..... Yup. Just don't read it lol. It's funny that people scream I suppose you read that in the Daily Mail then quote a story from the daily mail and pretend it means anything. That doesn't make any sense? Everyone knows the daily mail has its own agenda but like I said earlier they see fit to demonize anti vax protestors but give headline coverage to a man who thinks the disease is over exaggerated. How does that work?" And what is that Agenda Lionel.. ? Please share | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Daily mail readers....says it all..... Yup. Just don't read it lol. It's funny that people scream I suppose you read that in the Daily Mail then quote a story from the daily mail and pretend it means anything. That doesn't make any sense? Everyone knows the daily mail has its own agenda but like I said earlier they see fit to demonize anti vax protestors but give headline coverage to a man who thinks the disease is over exaggerated. How does that work? And what is that Agenda Lionel.. ? Please share " To spread love and tolerance wherever amongst its readership Obvs | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ad hominem... Attack the person rather that debate the argument. Label those who disagree as Daily Fail readers... I am old enough to remember when the Sun readers were branded as idiots but the rag outsold the Times by 8-1. There is nothing as intolerant as the liberal left in my view " 1. There is no debate. The science is sound. 2. The number of readers of a publication is not an indicator of the quality of accuracy of said publication. In its hay day, the Beano circulated at nearly 2 million copies. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hitchens has appeared on Question Time a few times. He's a professional provocateur, a man of people. That is if by people you mean the privately educated and right wing." Why privately educated? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Daily mail readers....says it all..... Yup. Just don't read it lol. It's funny that people scream I suppose you read that in the Daily Mail then quote a story from the daily mail and pretend it means anything. That doesn't make any sense? Everyone knows the daily mail has its own agenda but like I said earlier they see fit to demonize anti vax protestors but give headline coverage to a man who thinks the disease is over exaggerated. How does that work?" Just don't read it - write a letter to the Editor - Don't give it the air it craves - The morons who already read and believe it are fooked anyway. But every news outlet on the planet has contradictory stories and stories that are made up or exaggerated or political leaned this way or that. Having contradiction is just the way life is. There are no really trustworthy news outlets. Whenever you see a poll it's usually 'Trusted most by it's readers' Well of course it is otherwise those readers wouldn't have seen the Poll lol. Hitchens - love him or hate him, we can't gag him, well not until he breaks a speech law. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Daily mail readers....says it all..... Yup. Just don't read it lol. It's funny that people scream I suppose you read that in the Daily Mail then quote a story from the daily mail and pretend it means anything. That doesn't make any sense? Everyone knows the daily mail has its own agenda but like I said earlier they see fit to demonize anti vax protestors but give headline coverage to a man who thinks the disease is over exaggerated. How does that work? Just don't read it - write a letter to the Editor - Don't give it the air it craves - The morons who already read and believe it are fooked anyway. But every news outlet on the planet has contradictory stories and stories that are made up or exaggerated or political leaned this way or that. Having contradiction is just the way life is. There are no really trustworthy news outlets. Whenever you see a poll it's usually 'Trusted most by it's readers' Well of course it is otherwise those readers wouldn't have seen the Poll lol. Hitchens - love him or hate him, we can't gag him, well not until he breaks a speech law." Thsts not really the point is it. Anyone with half a brain would know its nonsense. But whenever anyone spouts such nonsense on here they are shouted down, yet a national newspaper is giving huge coverage to a man with the same views. Like I said in the original post,how can we expect people to not break the rules when this is given so much air time? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Daily mail readers....says it all..... Yup. Just don't read it lol. It's funny that people scream I suppose you read that in the Daily Mail then quote a story from the daily mail and pretend it means anything. That doesn't make any sense? Everyone knows the daily mail has its own agenda but like I said earlier they see fit to demonize anti vax protestors but give headline coverage to a man who thinks the disease is over exaggerated. How does that work? Just don't read it - write a letter to the Editor - Don't give it the air it craves - The morons who already read and believe it are fooked anyway. But every news outlet on the planet has contradictory stories and stories that are made up or exaggerated or political leaned this way or that. Having contradiction is just the way life is. There are no really trustworthy news outlets. Whenever you see a poll it's usually 'Trusted most by it's readers' Well of course it is otherwise those readers wouldn't have seen the Poll lol. Hitchens - love him or hate him, we can't gag him, well not until he breaks a speech law. Thsts not really the point is it. Anyone with half a brain would know its nonsense. But whenever anyone spouts such nonsense on here they are shouted down, yet a national newspaper is giving huge coverage to a man with the same views. Like I said in the original post,how can we expect people to not break the rules when this is given so much air time?" So where in the article does he advocate breaking rules? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Daily mail readers....says it all..... Yup. Just don't read it lol. It's funny that people scream I suppose you read that in the Daily Mail then quote a story from the daily mail and pretend it means anything. That doesn't make any sense? Everyone knows the daily mail has its own agenda but like I said earlier they see fit to demonize anti vax protestors but give headline coverage to a man who thinks the disease is over exaggerated. How does that work? Just don't read it - write a letter to the Editor - Don't give it the air it craves - The morons who already read and believe it are fooked anyway. But every news outlet on the planet has contradictory stories and stories that are made up or exaggerated or political leaned this way or that. Having contradiction is just the way life is. There are no really trustworthy news outlets. Whenever you see a poll it's usually 'Trusted most by it's readers' Well of course it is otherwise those readers wouldn't have seen the Poll lol. Hitchens - love him or hate him, we can't gag him, well not until he breaks a speech law. Thsts not really the point is it. Anyone with half a brain would know its nonsense. But whenever anyone spouts such nonsense on here they are shouted down, yet a national newspaper is giving huge coverage to a man with the same views. Like I said in the original post,how can we expect people to not break the rules when this is given so much air time? So where in the article does he advocate breaking rules? " He doesnt He seems to imply the seriousness of covid is exaggerated | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Thought I would read the article as seeing some of the alarmist posts on here I was expecting something as provocative as the satanic verses. Whilst I don’t agree with it. It’s not exactly lighting the blue touch paper. All this knicker twisting.
Same. Hence why I mentioned the Brendan O Neil podcast. Very tame and it’s triggered so many people.
I find it hilarious that one side is screaming about tyranny and freedom and it's the other one that's "triggered".
But typical, again."Where am I screaming about tyranny? Whose side am I supposed to be on? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So the Daily Mail is run by an idiocracy. Isn't that all you need to know?" No. How are these words taken, how does this influence people's actions? Does the influence pose a threat? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Thought I would read the article as seeing some of the alarmist posts on here I was expecting something as provocative as the satanic verses. Whilst I don’t agree with it. It’s not exactly lighting the blue touch paper. All this knicker twisting.
Same. Hence why I mentioned the Brendan O Neil podcast. Very tame and it’s triggered so many people.
I find it hilarious that one side is screaming about tyranny and freedom and it's the other one that's "triggered".
But typical, again.
Where am I screaming about tyranny? Whose side am I supposed to be on? "I've got no idea. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Lockdowns will kill more people long-term than Covid ever will, that’s the bottom line and you still have idiots supporting it. " Without lockdowns there would be more deaths through non covid illnesses as there would not be a hospital bed left for bugger all else. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So the Daily Mail is run by an idiocracy. Isn't that all you need to know?" Plenty of people believe what they read in there without thought. In this instance there could be real world implications. People could die because they read this and don't think they need to adhere to the lockdown. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Thought I would read the article as seeing some of the alarmist posts on here I was expecting something as provocative as the satanic verses. Whilst I don’t agree with it. It’s not exactly lighting the blue touch paper. All this knicker twisting.
Same. Hence why I mentioned the Brendan O Neil podcast. Very tame and it’s triggered so many people.
I find it hilarious that one side is screaming about tyranny and freedom and it's the other one that's "triggered".
But typical, again.
Where am I screaming about tyranny? Whose side am I supposed to be on?
I've got no idea."You made the statement, so I’m genuinely curious as to why. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Lockdowns will kill more people long-term than Covid ever will, that’s the bottom line and you still have idiots supporting it. Without lockdowns there would be more deaths through non covid illnesses as there would not be a hospital bed left for bugger all else." Plus all the people who might not die of Covid if there's enough hospital staff to care for them, but will die if they don't get optimal care. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Thought I would read the article as seeing some of the alarmist posts on here I was expecting something as provocative as the satanic verses. Whilst I don’t agree with it. It’s not exactly lighting the blue touch paper. All this knicker twisting.
Same. Hence why I mentioned the Brendan O Neil podcast. Very tame and it’s triggered so many people.
I find it hilarious that one side is screaming about tyranny and freedom and it's the other one that's "triggered".
But typical, again.
Where am I screaming about tyranny? Whose side am I supposed to be on?
I've got no idea.
You made the statement, so I’m genuinely curious as to why. "The term "triggered" gets thrown around by a certain segment of the community. I read the blurb of the podcast and saw it littered with buzz words from the same part of the community. No I didn't listen, I'm listening to a podcast on the evolution of viruses, which I consider more useful. I responded to the coded language and made a comment about the pattern that emerges. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When people can not put there point of view how far is this away from dictatorship tyranny ?" Not very far at all, but that's just my opinion. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Thought I would read the article as seeing some of the alarmist posts on here I was expecting something as provocative as the satanic verses. Whilst I don’t agree with it. It’s not exactly lighting the blue touch paper. All this knicker twisting.
Same. Hence why I mentioned the Brendan O Neil podcast. Very tame and it’s triggered so many people.
I find it hilarious that one side is screaming about tyranny and freedom and it's the other one that's "triggered".
But typical, again.
Where am I screaming about tyranny? Whose side am I supposed to be on?
I've got no idea.
You made the statement, so I’m genuinely curious as to why.
The term "triggered" gets thrown around by a certain segment of the community. I read the blurb of the podcast and saw it littered with buzz words from the same part of the community. No I didn't listen, I'm listening to a podcast on the evolution of viruses, which I consider more useful.
I responded to the coded language and made a comment about the pattern that emerges."Ah I understand. I’ll use ‘upset’ in future | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Toby young one is amusing because he said their wouldn't be a second wave. Time will not show these people in a good light..." And then deleted all his tweets | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So the Daily Mail is run by an idiocracy. Isn't that all you need to know? Plenty of people believe what they read in there without thought. In this instance there could be real world implications. People could die because they read this and don't think they need to adhere to the lockdown. " Totally agree. But unless we can ban the Daily Mail it's part of the speech we have. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Toby young one is amusing because he said their wouldn't be a second wave. Time will not show these people in a good light... And then deleted all his tweets" Yup. They think we forget
They were saved, you need to own up to your shit. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So the Daily Mail is run by an idiocracy. Isn't that all you need to know? Plenty of people believe what they read in there without thought. In this instance there could be real world implications. People could die because they read this and don't think they need to adhere to the lockdown. Totally agree. But unless we can ban the Daily Mail it's part of the speech we have." I'm not familiar with the regulations that might apply in this case, but speech is already regulated. The Daily Mail can continue to exist. If it's spouting dangerous falsehoods, there might be legal processes to follow to get it to stop. This denialism is clearly dangerous. And I'm not sorry I value lives and health over freedom of expression. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"At the moment we're seeing several variants of Covid emerging. The evidence suggests that the mutations in the main ones evade our antibodies. The way we get more variants is by spreading our germs. And people argue for the freedom to spread their germs "And people believe everything they’re told | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"At the moment we're seeing several variants of Covid emerging. The evidence suggests that the mutations in the main ones evade our antibodies. The way we get more variants is by spreading our germs. And people argue for the freedom to spread their germs
And people believe everything they’re told "I'm not sure you're seeing the irony of the posts like this that you keep making. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"At the moment we're seeing several variants of Covid emerging. The evidence suggests that the mutations in the main ones evade our antibodies. The way we get more variants is by spreading our germs. And people argue for the freedom to spread their germs
And people believe everything they’re told "Says the person congratulating people throwing parties for rising up against tyranny. Yeah ok | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"At the moment we're seeing several variants of Covid emerging. The evidence suggests that the mutations in the main ones evade our antibodies. The way we get more variants is by spreading our germs. And people argue for the freedom to spread their germs
And people believe everything they’re told
I'm not sure you're seeing the irony of the posts like this that you keep making. "I'm missing Hitler and sheeple on my bingo card, we can do it! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"At the moment we're seeing several variants of Covid emerging. The evidence suggests that the mutations in the main ones evade our antibodies. The way we get more variants is by spreading our germs. And people argue for the freedom to spread their germs
And people believe everything they’re told
I'm not sure you're seeing the irony of the posts like this that you keep making.
I'm missing Hitler and sheeple on my bingo card, we can do it!"I don't really know what "sheeple" means. I see conspiracy theorists use it to describe scientifically literate people occasionally. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I never look at the daily mail website for obvious reasons, but I had a look today and the 3rd story down is a piece by peter Hitchens basically saying covid is exaggerating and arguing against lockdown. Even the half arsed lock down we have. I'm fully aware we have free speech in this country but this is one of the most well read websites in the country. Is it any wonder people are breaking the rules when a national newspaper is printing this? Toby young was another one who was saying covid was no worse than having a cold." Thank God someone talking sense | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"At the moment we're seeing several variants of Covid emerging. The evidence suggests that the mutations in the main ones evade our antibodies. The way we get more variants is by spreading our germs. And people argue for the freedom to spread their germs
And people believe everything they’re told
I'm not sure you're seeing the irony of the posts like this that you keep making.
I'm missing Hitler and sheeple on my bingo card, we can do it!
I don't really know what "sheeple" means. I see conspiracy theorists use it to describe scientifically literate people occasionally."Following blindly. MSM means sources I dislike Triggered means any negative emotion opponents express. See also offended Tyranny, Hitler, censorship, Stalin means rules I don't like Cancel culture means consequences applying to people I like. (The law should only apply to those other people, not people like me) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I never look at the daily mail website for obvious reasons, but I had a look today and the 3rd story down is a piece by peter Hitchens basically saying covid is exaggerating and arguing against lockdown. Even the half arsed lock down we have. I'm fully aware we have free speech in this country but this is one of the most well read websites in the country. Is it any wonder people are breaking the rules when a national newspaper is printing this? Toby young was another one who was saying covid was no worse than having a cold. Thank God someone talking sense " Yep you can always rely on our toby to talk sense | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Chris Wittey said on Friday and please correct me if I am wrong, and I apologise if I am wrong, that if 1000 people catch Covid that about 12 die. 1.2% How many are dieing from cancelled cancer and serious illness appointments? I don't know the answer. He also said that the Kent strain may be causing more deaths.. up from about 12 per 1000 to maybe 14-16 per 1000. That is around 1.4 or 1.6 % Nearly all the Papers reported that the new strain was 30% more contagious. Maybe factually correct but irresponsible headline grabbing. All the papers publish shite and only fools believe.. Mail, Express and Guardian are the worst in my opinion and not in that order.. It " It probally didnt help that our glorious leader blurted out it being more deadly, without it being confirmed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Chris Wittey said on Friday and please correct me if I am wrong, and I apologise if I am wrong, that if 1000 people catch Covid that about 12 die. 1.2% " That's about 800 000 people in the UK. That cool with you? That's not cool with me. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I never look at the daily mail website for obvious reasons, but I had a look today and the 3rd story down is a piece by peter Hitchens basically saying covid is exaggerating and arguing against lockdown. Even the half arsed lock down we have. I'm fully aware we have free speech in this country but this is one of the most well read websites in the country. Is it any wonder people are breaking the rules when a national newspaper is printing this? Toby young was another one who was saying covid was no worse than having a cold. Thank God someone talking sense " Do nearly 2000 people die of the sniffles every day? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I never look at the daily mail website for obvious reasons, but I had a look today and the 3rd story down is a piece by peter Hitchens basically saying covid is exaggerating and arguing against lockdown. Even the half arsed lock down we have. I'm fully aware we have free speech in this country but this is one of the most well read websites in the country. Is it any wonder people are breaking the rules when a national newspaper is printing this? Toby young was another one who was saying covid was no worse than having a cold. Thank God someone talking sense Do nearly 2000 people die of the sniffles every day?" Well they obviously deserve it somehow. Duh. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Chris Wittey said on Friday and please correct me if I am wrong, and I apologise if I am wrong, that if 1000 people catch Covid that about 12 die. 1.2% That's about 800 000 people in the UK. That cool with you? That's not cool with me." and thats before we take into account if they all get it a the same time we dont have the hospital capacity so more dont get treatment and die | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Chris Wittey said on Friday and please correct me if I am wrong, and I apologise if I am wrong, that if 1000 people catch Covid that about 12 die. 1.2% That's about 800 000 people in the UK. That cool with you? That's not cool with me. and thats before we take into account if they all get it a the same time we dont have the hospital capacity so more dont get treatment and die " Indeed. Or further variation by less controlled spread. And cancer patients. Sigh. Still this. You know a really bad time to take cancer patients, already medically vulnerable, out in public and to the hospital? Maybe during a pandemic? Maybe suppressing the virus might also improve their outcomes by helping them not catch a new virus while they're trying to get Covid treatment? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hitchens is coming from a place of perspective and proportion. His stance is, is it proportionate for the U.K. to take such measures when the survival rate is over 99.4% of the population and the average mortality age is 84.3 years, generally with individuals who have other underlying health conditions. Notwithstanding Coronaviruses typically attribute to over 60,000 deaths most winters, putting strain upon the NHS which has been mismanaged by both Conservative and Labour governments over many decades. " I think when nearly 2000 people are dying a die,its probally wise to do something. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Peter Hitchens speaks common sense along with Neil Oliver. Pity it’s virtually absent on here. " Funniest post of the day... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hitchens is coming from a place of perspective and proportion. His stance is, is it proportionate for the U.K. to take such measures when the survival rate is over 99.4% of the population and the average mortality age is 84.3 years, generally with individuals who have other underlying health conditions. Notwithstanding Coronaviruses typically attribute to over 60,000 deaths most winters, putting strain upon the NHS which has been mismanaged by both Conservative and Labour governments over many decades. " This is a really slanted interpretation of the data. And at points a misinterpretation, because I think your 60k figure is flu. Which, as we've been saying for nearly a year now, is not a corona virus. The endemic corona viruses in the UK are common colds. You're very welcome | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hitchens is coming from a place of perspective and proportion. His stance is, is it proportionate for the U.K. to take such measures when the survival rate is over 99.4% of the population and the average mortality age is 84.3 years, generally with individuals who have other underlying health conditions. Notwithstanding Coronaviruses typically attribute to over 60,000 deaths most winters, putting strain upon the NHS which has been mismanaged by both Conservative and Labour governments over many decades. I think when nearly 2000 people are dying a die,its probally wise to do something. " The thing is tho, and I know this’ll piss people off because I’m pointing something out they won’t like - Hitchens wasn’t arguing for doing nothing. He’s skeptical of the seriousness of the virus, yes. He’s skeptical of a wide reaching lockdown, yes. But he’s not saying do nothing. This is why it blows my head when people seem to be getting so het up in the thread. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Everyone is entitled to an opinion just because it differs from your own doesn’t make it wrong, lockdown is destroying livelihoods and business the same businesses that pay tax to fund the nhs and all other public services, it the wealth generators who are suffering remember all government money comes from wealth generating businesses not public services, the basic economic fact is we need to get back to work " Not wanting to lose the freedom to be exploited by the wealth generators so they can hide their wealth in tax havens, if the state has no say in wealth generation how come the wealth generators aren’t building roads or railways or power stations or any of the other myriad infrastructure pieces that go toward the creation of wealth. Paid for thru taxes...when the creators deem fit to pay them...it isn’t simply business good, state bad or all the struggling businesses & their employees would be closed, bankrupt & unemployed..happy to take state money then? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hitchens is coming from a place of perspective and proportion. His stance is, is it proportionate for the U.K. to take such measures when the survival rate is over 99.4% of the population and the average mortality age is 84.3 years, generally with individuals who have other underlying health conditions. Notwithstanding Coronaviruses typically attribute to over 60,000 deaths most winters, putting strain upon the NHS which has been mismanaged by both Conservative and Labour governments over many decades. I think when nearly 2000 people are dying a die,its probally wise to do something. The thing is tho, and I know this’ll piss people off because I’m pointing something out they won’t like - Hitchens wasn’t arguing for doing nothing. He’s skeptical of the seriousness of the virus, yes. He’s skeptical of a wide reaching lockdown, yes. But he’s not saying do nothing. This is why it blows my head when people seem to be getting so het up in the thread. " currently our government have chosen 1 strategy, lockdowns until vaccination has reached enough of the population and cases are under control citizens dont have a choice of A B or C methods of virus control it doesn’t matter if he isn’t say do nothing, if he is saying ignore lockdown it equates to the same | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hitchens is coming from a place of perspective and proportion. His stance is, is it proportionate for the U.K. to take such measures when the survival rate is over 99.4% of the population and the average mortality age is 84.3 years, generally with individuals who have other underlying health conditions. Notwithstanding Coronaviruses typically attribute to over 60,000 deaths most winters, putting strain upon the NHS which has been mismanaged by both Conservative and Labour governments over many decades. I think when nearly 2000 people are dying a die,its probally wise to do something. The thing is tho, and I know this’ll piss people off because I’m pointing something out they won’t like - Hitchens wasn’t arguing for doing nothing. He’s skeptical of the seriousness of the virus, yes. He’s skeptical of a wide reaching lockdown, yes. But he’s not saying do nothing. This is why it blows my head when people seem to be getting so het up in the thread. currently our government have chosen 1 strategy, lockdowns until vaccination has reached enough of the population and cases are under control citizens dont have a choice of A B or C methods of virus control it doesn’t matter if he isn’t say do nothing, if he is saying ignore lockdown it equates to the same " He isn’t saying ignore it either. Read the article. Listen to his interview. His criticism is of the complete lack of any skepticism. Do I agree that lockdowns don’t work? No idea, I’m not an expert, and I’ll wait for the public enquiry. Am I curious about it? Absolutely. Having worked for the government for a long time I know exactly how inept they are, through successive governments, so I’m honestly concerned they might have gotten it wrong, but we won’t know until the enquiry. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All of the media and social media have a great responsibility to promote safety and well-being, with restricted publication of anything that doesn't follow the current system to be limited to the greatest extent. It's certainly OK to question but not to promote going against scientific evidence. This same rag did that with many years of promoting the stopping the MMR vaccine, which has caused needless suffering and deaths of those who bought into their argument. They have never apologised. Too many gullible people are rabble roused by such pieces, with dire consequences, that are not driven by good journalism and expert inquiry. When people come out with that nonsense on here they are ridiculed. This is a national newspaper probally read by 100,000s . Just goes to show the power the media have.... And because its in that trustworthy organ the daily mail... People will believe and spread it. So irresponsible. Opinion is one thing but let's all have our opinions when we stop dying and spreading this awful disease. " Given how strong we know the placebo effect to be it is just as dangerous to fear monger a whole nation into believing this is gonna wipe out humanity. It's not. Flu is often used as a comparison & here's why. 17/18 80k people died of/with flu & that's with a vaccine program! Nhs was overwhelmed them before they made less space by putting in social distancing meaning less on every ward. Average life expectancy 80yr old, average person dying is over 80. We have an aging population meaning more will die every year as nature takes it course. As for cancelling society, it has & always was the case that you could pick up & transmit a virus anywhere, more people, more transmission, therefore we always picked up viruses and took them home including to our vulnerable relatives unless you knew you wear I'll & stayed away. This always had been this way, we just didn't test for it. The younger ones dying are largely anomalies when you look at the full scale of the population. Even those who have died only amount to 0.12% of the population and in every year over 500k die for a variety of reasons. This isn't something that'll wipe us out but they are locking us all up and making us criminals just to live & be a social human bring which is what we need and have evolved to be. Isolation is a punishment even in prisons! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hitchens is coming from a place of perspective and proportion. His stance is, is it proportionate for the U.K. to take such measures when the survival rate is over 99.4% of the population and the average mortality age is 84.3 years, generally with individuals who have other underlying health conditions. Notwithstanding Coronaviruses typically attribute to over 60,000 deaths most winters, putting strain upon the NHS which has been mismanaged by both Conservative and Labour governments over many decades. I think when nearly 2000 people are dying a die,its probally wise to do something. The thing is tho, and I know this’ll piss people off because I’m pointing something out they won’t like - Hitchens wasn’t arguing for doing nothing. He’s skeptical of the seriousness of the virus, yes. He’s skeptical of a wide reaching lockdown, yes. But he’s not saying do nothing. This is why it blows my head when people seem to be getting so het up in the thread. " Tbh I cant see how you can be be sceptical of a disease which has killed nearly 100,000 people and we if hadn't have locked down that figure would be much higher. I get there is arguments about lockdown, but I'm.extremly sceptical about the reasons behind it. The daily mail and Hitchens couldnt give a fuck about ordinary people. They didnt seen that arsed when austerity ravaged high streets and jobs..why are they so arsed now? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hitchens is coming from a place of perspective and proportion. His stance is, is it proportionate for the U.K. to take such measures when the survival rate is over 99.4% of the population and the average mortality age is 84.3 years, generally with individuals who have other underlying health conditions. Notwithstanding Coronaviruses typically attribute to over 60,000 deaths most winters, putting strain upon the NHS which has been mismanaged by both Conservative and Labour governments over many decades. I think when nearly 2000 people are dying a die,its probally wise to do something. The thing is tho, and I know this’ll piss people off because I’m pointing something out they won’t like - Hitchens wasn’t arguing for doing nothing. He’s skeptical of the seriousness of the virus, yes. He’s skeptical of a wide reaching lockdown, yes. But he’s not saying do nothing. This is why it blows my head when people seem to be getting so het up in the thread. currently our government have chosen 1 strategy, lockdowns until vaccination has reached enough of the population and cases are under control citizens dont have a choice of A B or C methods of virus control it doesn’t matter if he isn’t say do nothing, if he is saying ignore lockdown it equates to the same He isn’t saying ignore it either. Read the article. Listen to his interview. His criticism is of the complete lack of any skepticism. Do I agree that lockdowns don’t work? No idea, I’m not an expert, and I’ll wait for the public enquiry. Am I curious about it? Absolutely. Having worked for the government for a long time I know exactly how inept they are, through successive governments, so I’m honestly concerned they might have gotten it wrong, but we won’t know until the enquiry. " I think the government are a bunch of raging lying sociopathic buffoons with blood on their hands We are left with lockdown because they won't make hard decisions. I'm plenty sceptical. But the whataboutery isn't the way to go about it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hitchens is coming from a place of perspective and proportion. His stance is, is it proportionate for the U.K. to take such measures when the survival rate is over 99.4% of the population and the average mortality age is 84.3 years, generally with individuals who have other underlying health conditions. Notwithstanding Coronaviruses typically attribute to over 60,000 deaths most winters, putting strain upon the NHS which has been mismanaged by both Conservative and Labour governments over many decades. I think when nearly 2000 people are dying a die,its probally wise to do something. The thing is tho, and I know this’ll piss people off because I’m pointing something out they won’t like - Hitchens wasn’t arguing for doing nothing. He’s skeptical of the seriousness of the virus, yes. He’s skeptical of a wide reaching lockdown, yes. But he’s not saying do nothing. This is why it blows my head when people seem to be getting so het up in the thread. currently our government have chosen 1 strategy, lockdowns until vaccination has reached enough of the population and cases are under control citizens dont have a choice of A B or C methods of virus control it doesn’t matter if he isn’t say do nothing, if he is saying ignore lockdown it equates to the same He isn’t saying ignore it either. Read the article. Listen to his interview. His criticism is of the complete lack of any skepticism. Do I agree that lockdowns don’t work? No idea, I’m not an expert, and I’ll wait for the public enquiry. Am I curious about it? Absolutely. Having worked for the government for a long time I know exactly how inept they are, through successive governments, so I’m honestly concerned they might have gotten it wrong, but we won’t know until the enquiry. I think the government are a bunch of raging lying sociopathic buffoons with blood on their hands We are left with lockdown because they won't make hard decisions. I'm plenty sceptical. But the whataboutery isn't the way to go about it." Maybe stand as an MP? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well the sooner this bacteria is defeated the better.. " Which bacteria? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well the sooner this bacteria is defeated the better.. Which bacteria?" Lol | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hitchens is coming from a place of perspective and proportion. His stance is, is it proportionate for the U.K. to take such measures when the survival rate is over 99.4% of the population and the average mortality age is 84.3 years, generally with individuals who have other underlying health conditions. Notwithstanding Coronaviruses typically attribute to over 60,000 deaths most winters, putting strain upon the NHS which has been mismanaged by both Conservative and Labour governments over many decades. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The truth of it is no body will know if lockdown was the right thing to do or not until there’s a full public enquiry which won’t happen for a long long time. By then we’ll have a good assessment of the fallout, both from covid and the economic damage from lockdown. Until then everyone’s just screaming into the wind " Lockdowns DON'T work. Extract from a recent study. Assessing Mandatory Stay-at-Home and Business Closure Effects on the Spread of COVID-19 First published: 05 January 2021| https://doi.org/10.1111/eci.13484 This article has been accepted for publication and undergone full peer review but has not been through the copyediting, typesetting, pagination and proofreading process, which may lead to differences between this version and the Version of Record. Please cite this article as doi:10.1111/eci.13484 Abstract Background and Aims The most restrictive non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) for controlling the spread of COVID-19 are mandatory stay-at-home and business closures. Given the consequences of these policies, it is important to assess their effects. We evaluate the effects on epidemic case growth of more restrictive NPIs (mrNPIs), above and beyond those of less restrictive NPIs (lrNPIs). Methods We first estimate COVID-19 case growth in relation to any NPI implementation in subnational regions of 10 countries: England, France, Germany, Iran, Italy, Netherlands, Spain, South Korea, Sweden, and the US. Using first-difference models with fixed effects, we isolate the effects of mrNPIs by subtracting the combined effects of lrNPIs and epidemic dynamics from all NPIs. We use case growth in Sweden and South Korea, two countries that did not implement mandatory stay-at-home and business closures, as comparison countries for the other 8 countries (16 total comparisons). Results Implementing any NPIs was associated with significant reductions in case growth in 9 out of 10 study countries, including South Korea and Sweden that implemented only lrNPIs (Spain had a non-significant effect). After subtracting the epidemic and lrNPI effects, we find no clear, significant beneficial effect of mrNPIs on case growth in any country. In France, e.g., the effect of mrNPIs was +7% (95CI -5%-19%) when compared with Sweden, and +13% (-12%-38%) when compared with South Korea (positive means pro-contagion). The 95% confidence intervals excluded 30% declines in all 16 comparisons and 15% declines in 11/16 comparisons. Conclusions While small benefits cannot be excluded, we do not find significant benefits on case growth of more restrictive NPIs. Similar reductions in case growth may be achievable with less restrictive interventions. If anyone would like the link to the full study, feel free to message me. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Everyone is entitled to an opinion just because it differs from your own doesn’t make it wrong, lockdown is destroying livelihoods and business the same businesses that pay tax to fund the nhs and all other public services, it the wealth generators who are suffering remember all government money comes from wealth generating businesses not public services, the basic economic fact is we need to get back to work Absolutely Lockdowns will kill more people long-term than Covid ever will, that’s the bottom line and you still have idiots supporting it. " Agreed, it's a farcical situation that needs to end, it's almost like all other illnesses have stopped to make way for Covid Hunger, poverty, mental health is rife now but that doesn't seem to matter anymore, I've had a life threatening illness since July, I've had no help or support from any direction at all, it's shameful! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hitchens is coming from a place of perspective and proportion. His stance is, is it proportionate for the U.K. to take such measures when the survival rate is over 99.4% of the population and the average mortality age is 84.3 years, generally with individuals who have other underlying health conditions. Notwithstanding Coronaviruses typically attribute to over 60,000 deaths most winters, putting strain upon the NHS which has been mismanaged by both Conservative and Labour governments over many decades. I think when nearly 2000 people are dying a die,its probally wise to do something. The thing is tho, and I know this’ll piss people off because I’m pointing something out they won’t like - Hitchens wasn’t arguing for doing nothing. He’s skeptical of the seriousness of the virus, yes. He’s skeptical of a wide reaching lockdown, yes. But he’s not saying do nothing. This is why it blows my head when people seem to be getting so het up in the thread. Tbh I cant see how you can be be sceptical of a disease which has killed nearly 100,000 people and we if hadn't have locked down that figure would be much higher. I get there is arguments about lockdown, but I'm.extremly sceptical about the reasons behind it. The daily mail and Hitchens couldnt give a fuck about ordinary people. They didnt seen that arsed when austerity ravaged high streets and jobs..why are they so arsed now?" Because over half a million die each year, especially in the over 80's category because this is how life works, we live & then die by some prior unknown cause and it's not like we're given a countdown timer now is it. It's absurd to me that anyone thinks that it's not normal for death especially in that age range to occur. We're not immortal after all, our clocks are always ticking until they stop. There's 6 in mine I've lost this year alone, all but one were over 80, and all in poor health well before covid, it was a ticking time line. it's not uncommon given the size of my family/extended family tbh. When exactly would you like folk to die? Would you like them all to die peacefully in their sleep? If so then I suggest you back euthanasia because that's the only way everyone would get a peaceful death. I get the subject isn't nice to talk about & that it hurts when you loose folk, no one wants to lose a loved one and no one wants to be left, the best comfort I can give to the personal is knowing they are always with you & are a part of you. Maybe my opinions are more so because I'm a country lass, life & death cycle is seen all the time there for various reasons and I also grew up in Glasgow when it was the murder capital of Europe. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The truth of it is no body will know if lockdown was the right thing to do or not until there’s a full public enquiry which won’t happen for a long long time. By then we’ll have a good assessment of the fallout, both from covid and the economic damage from lockdown. Until then everyone’s just screaming into the wind Lockdowns DON'T work. Extract from a recent study. Assessing Mandatory Stay-at-Home and Business Closure Effects on the Spread of COVID-19 First published: 05 January 2021| https://doi.org/10.1111/eci.13484 This article has been accepted for publication and undergone full peer review but has not been through the copyediting, typesetting, pagination and proofreading process, which may lead to differences between this version and the Version of Record. Please cite this article as doi:10.1111/eci.13484 Abstract Background and Aims The most restrictive non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) for controlling the spread of COVID-19 are mandatory stay-at-home and business closures. Given the consequences of these policies, it is important to assess their effects. We evaluate the effects on epidemic case growth of more restrictive NPIs (mrNPIs), above and beyond those of less restrictive NPIs (lrNPIs). Methods We first estimate COVID-19 case growth in relation to any NPI implementation in subnational regions of 10 countries: England, France, Germany, Iran, Italy, Netherlands, Spain, South Korea, Sweden, and the US. Using first-difference models with fixed effects, we isolate the effects of mrNPIs by subtracting the combined effects of lrNPIs and epidemic dynamics from all NPIs. We use case growth in Sweden and South Korea, two countries that did not implement mandatory stay-at-home and business closures, as comparison countries for the other 8 countries (16 total comparisons). Results Implementing any NPIs was associated with significant reductions in case growth in 9 out of 10 study countries, including South Korea and Sweden that implemented only lrNPIs (Spain had a non-significant effect). After subtracting the epidemic and lrNPI effects, we find no clear, significant beneficial effect of mrNPIs on case growth in any country. In France, e.g., the effect of mrNPIs was +7% (95CI -5%-19%) when compared with Sweden, and +13% (-12%-38%) when compared with South Korea (positive means pro-contagion). The 95% confidence intervals excluded 30% declines in all 16 comparisons and 15% declines in 11/16 comparisons. Conclusions While small benefits cannot be excluded, we do not find significant benefits on case growth of more restrictive NPIs. Similar reductions in case growth may be achievable with less restrictive interventions. If anyone would like the link to the full study, feel free to message me. " I'm good ta | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hitchens is coming from a place of perspective and proportion. His stance is, is it proportionate for the U.K. to take such measures when the survival rate is over 99.4% of the population and the average mortality age is 84.3 years, generally with individuals who have other underlying health conditions. Notwithstanding Coronaviruses typically attribute to over 60,000 deaths most winters, putting strain upon the NHS which has been mismanaged by both Conservative and Labour governments over many decades. I think when nearly 2000 people are dying a die,its probally wise to do something. The thing is tho, and I know this’ll piss people off because I’m pointing something out they won’t like - Hitchens wasn’t arguing for doing nothing. He’s skeptical of the seriousness of the virus, yes. He’s skeptical of a wide reaching lockdown, yes. But he’s not saying do nothing. This is why it blows my head when people seem to be getting so het up in the thread. Tbh I cant see how you can be be sceptical of a disease which has killed nearly 100,000 people and we if hadn't have locked down that figure would be much higher. I get there is arguments about lockdown, but I'm.extremly sceptical about the reasons behind it. The daily mail and Hitchens couldnt give a fuck about ordinary people. They didnt seen that arsed when austerity ravaged high streets and jobs..why are they so arsed now? Because over half a million die each year, especially in the over 80's category because this is how life works, we live & then die by some prior unknown cause and it's not like we're given a countdown timer now is it. It's absurd to me that anyone thinks that it's not normal for death especially in that age range to occur. We're not immortal after all, our clocks are always ticking until they stop. There's 6 in mine I've lost this year alone, all but one were over 80, and all in poor health well before covid, it was a ticking time line. it's not uncommon given the size of my family/extended family tbh. When exactly would you like folk to die? Would you like them all to die peacefully in their sleep? If so then I suggest you back euthanasia because that's the only way everyone would get a peaceful death. I get the subject isn't nice to talk about & that it hurts when you loose folk, no one wants to lose a loved one and no one wants to be left, the best comfort I can give to the personal is knowing they are always with you & are a part of you. Maybe my opinions are more so because I'm a country lass, life & death cycle is seen all the time there for various reasons and I also grew up in Glasgow when it was the murder capital of Europe." You are missing my point. When we had austerity people lost the jobs left ,right and centre. People lost their livelihoods and businesses went under. I don't recall the daily mail being too arsed about that. Yet we are faced with a deadly pandemic,have locked down and suddenly developed a conscious about peoples jobs? It stinks. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Everyone is entitled to an opinion just because it differs from your own doesn’t make it wrong, lockdown is destroying livelihoods and business the same businesses that pay tax to fund the nhs and all other public services, it the wealth generators who are suffering remember all government money comes from wealth generating businesses not public services, the basic economic fact is we need to get back to work Absolutely Lockdowns will kill more people long-term than Covid ever will, that’s the bottom line and you still have idiots supporting it. Agreed, it's a farcical situation that needs to end, it's almost like all other illnesses have stopped to make way for Covid Hunger, poverty, mental health is rife now but that doesn't seem to matter anymore, I've had a life threatening illness since July, I've had no help or support from any direction at all, it's shameful! " Exactly, no support not even for the group I run, which I can't do on zoom due to the nature of the group, just wouldn't work. We've had Several appointments cancelled with no notice including ecg, cancer dept monitoring, psych, nerve testing, etc. Was at hospital last week to X-ray shoulder, really quiet, no ambulance queues, no indication anywhere I was that they were overwhelmed, wards maybe but not whole hospitals (here anyhow). Schools off again possibly til Easter, kids & I have adhd....yeah that'll work won't it...bad enough in normal times never mind without the mental switch up of a classroom. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hitchens is coming from a place of perspective and proportion. His stance is, is it proportionate for the U.K. to take such measures when the survival rate is over 99.4% of the population and the average mortality age is 84.3 years, generally with individuals who have other underlying health conditions. Notwithstanding Coronaviruses typically attribute to over 60,000 deaths most winters, putting strain upon the NHS which has been mismanaged by both Conservative and Labour governments over many decades. I think when nearly 2000 people are dying a die,its probally wise to do something. The thing is tho, and I know this’ll piss people off because I’m pointing something out they won’t like - Hitchens wasn’t arguing for doing nothing. He’s skeptical of the seriousness of the virus, yes. He’s skeptical of a wide reaching lockdown, yes. But he’s not saying do nothing. This is why it blows my head when people seem to be getting so het up in the thread. currently our government have chosen 1 strategy, lockdowns until vaccination has reached enough of the population and cases are under control citizens dont have a choice of A B or C methods of virus control it doesn’t matter if he isn’t say do nothing, if he is saying ignore lockdown it equates to the same He isn’t saying ignore it either. Read the article. Listen to his interview. His criticism is of the complete lack of any skepticism. Do I agree that lockdowns don’t work? No idea, I’m not an expert, and I’ll wait for the public enquiry. Am I curious about it? Absolutely. Having worked for the government for a long time I know exactly how inept they are, through successive governments, so I’m honestly concerned they might have gotten it wrong, but we won’t know until the enquiry. " i think many people will agree with you that many things have been done wrong ... but it doesn’t detract from the fact that it is 1. irresponsible for the press to mix fact based news and opinion pieces to the extent that many people can’t tell them apart 2. even worse to do this when the opinion piece can and will encourage people too ignore measures that have been out in place for the purpose of public health (even if you don’t think they are the best measures they are currently all we have) i might take some flak for this but i don’t care i think its a fair point ... me and you don’t agree on this, but i think its safe to say you both appear to have at least a level of intelligence enough that lets you read something, digest what its saying to you, look at the source and what agenda that source has and form an opinion ... don’t assume because you’ve done this that everyone is capable of the same ... and that is why this type of reporting is dangerous | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Everyone is entitled to an opinion just because it differs from your own doesn’t make it wrong, lockdown is destroying livelihoods and business the same businesses that pay tax to fund the nhs and all other public services, it the wealth generators who are suffering remember all government money comes from wealth generating businesses not public services, the basic economic fact is we need to get back to work Absolutely Lockdowns will kill more people long-term than Covid ever will, that’s the bottom line and you still have idiots supporting it. Agreed, it's a farcical situation that needs to end, it's almost like all other illnesses have stopped to make way for Covid Hunger, poverty, mental health is rife now but that doesn't seem to matter anymore, I've had a life threatening illness since July, I've had no help or support from any direction at all, it's shameful! " Did poverty,mental health and hunger not exist pre covid? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hitchens is coming from a place of perspective and proportion. His stance is, is it proportionate for the U.K. to take such measures when the survival rate is over 99.4% of the population and the average mortality age is 84.3 years, generally with individuals who have other underlying health conditions. Notwithstanding Coronaviruses typically attribute to over 60,000 deaths most winters, putting strain upon the NHS which has been mismanaged by both Conservative and Labour governments over many decades. I think when nearly 2000 people are dying a die,its probally wise to do something. The thing is tho, and I know this’ll piss people off because I’m pointing something out they won’t like - Hitchens wasn’t arguing for doing nothing. He’s skeptical of the seriousness of the virus, yes. He’s skeptical of a wide reaching lockdown, yes. But he’s not saying do nothing. This is why it blows my head when people seem to be getting so het up in the thread. currently our government have chosen 1 strategy, lockdowns until vaccination has reached enough of the population and cases are under control citizens dont have a choice of A B or C methods of virus control it doesn’t matter if he isn’t say do nothing, if he is saying ignore lockdown it equates to the same He isn’t saying ignore it either. Read the article. Listen to his interview. His criticism is of the complete lack of any skepticism. Do I agree that lockdowns don’t work? No idea, I’m not an expert, and I’ll wait for the public enquiry. Am I curious about it? Absolutely. Having worked for the government for a long time I know exactly how inept they are, through successive governments, so I’m honestly concerned they might have gotten it wrong, but we won’t know until the enquiry. i think many people will agree with you that many things have been done wrong ... but it doesn’t detract from the fact that it is 1. irresponsible for the press to mix fact based news and opinion pieces to the extent that many people can’t tell them apart 2. even worse to do this when the opinion piece can and will encourage people too ignore measures that have been out in place for the purpose of public health (even if you don’t think they are the best measures they are currently all we have) i might take some flak for this but i don’t care i think its a fair point ... me and you don’t agree on this, but i think its safe to say you both appear to have at least a level of intelligence enough that lets you read something, digest what its saying to you, look at the source and what agenda that source has and form an opinion ... don’t assume because you’ve done this that everyone is capable of the same ... and that is why this type of reporting is dangerous " I agree. The press has a level of responsibility. Or should. Not everyone is able to research effectively, parse resources. Most don't even know where to begin and think it involves a Google search or two (hint: no). The level of information has exploded but the level of quality control has plummeted. It bloody shows. And it matters now more than ever. Lives are at stake. All I want is for all of us to get out of this with our health. And if we all pitch in and get it done, hopefully without this push pull in and out of lockdown economic suicide. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hitchens is coming from a place of perspective and proportion. His stance is, is it proportionate for the U.K. to take such measures when the survival rate is over 99.4% of the population and the average mortality age is 84.3 years, generally with individuals who have other underlying health conditions. Notwithstanding Coronaviruses typically attribute to over 60,000 deaths most winters, putting strain upon the NHS which has been mismanaged by both Conservative and Labour governments over many decades. I think when nearly 2000 people are dying a die,its probally wise to do something. The thing is tho, and I know this’ll piss people off because I’m pointing something out they won’t like - Hitchens wasn’t arguing for doing nothing. He’s skeptical of the seriousness of the virus, yes. He’s skeptical of a wide reaching lockdown, yes. But he’s not saying do nothing. This is why it blows my head when people seem to be getting so het up in the thread. Tbh I cant see how you can be be sceptical of a disease which has killed nearly 100,000 people and we if hadn't have locked down that figure would be much higher. I get there is arguments about lockdown, but I'm.extremly sceptical about the reasons behind it. The daily mail and Hitchens couldnt give a fuck about ordinary people. They didnt seen that arsed when austerity ravaged high streets and jobs..why are they so arsed now? Because over half a million die each year, especially in the over 80's category because this is how life works, we live & then die by some prior unknown cause and it's not like we're given a countdown timer now is it. It's absurd to me that anyone thinks that it's not normal for death especially in that age range to occur. We're not immortal after all, our clocks are always ticking until they stop. There's 6 in mine I've lost this year alone, all but one were over 80, and all in poor health well before covid, it was a ticking time line. it's not uncommon given the size of my family/extended family tbh. When exactly would you like folk to die? Would you like them all to die peacefully in their sleep? If so then I suggest you back euthanasia because that's the only way everyone would get a peaceful death. I get the subject isn't nice to talk about & that it hurts when you loose folk, no one wants to lose a loved one and no one wants to be left, the best comfort I can give to the personal is knowing they are always with you & are a part of you. Maybe my opinions are more so because I'm a country lass, life & death cycle is seen all the time there for various reasons and I also grew up in Glasgow when it was the murder capital of Europe. You are missing my point. When we had austerity people lost the jobs left ,right and centre. People lost their livelihoods and businesses went under. I don't recall the daily mail being too arsed about that. Yet we are faced with a deadly pandemic,have locked down and suddenly developed a conscious about peoples jobs? It stinks." Never actually said nowt bout jobs but as we know men are more likely to commit suicide than women & since most of the businesses are male owned statistically...would you like to calculate that when the banks come hounding them for their house & make them homeless, wife leaves with kids back to mums etc etc. Lockdowns are bringing on several other pandemics round the world because people need money to pay bills and blooming eat you fool! I take it you've never tried to live on benefits? Or faced austerity due a limitation you can't control? In term of the economy it drastically needs to change, capitalism and consumerism needs to take a nose dive very very fast before the corps devastate more eco systems with the stupid thoughts that we aren't part of nature and we don't need it to survive & green washing consumers is just as bad if not worse. just wait for what comes next, food shortages & unpolluted fresh water shortages....covid is nothing compared to what's coming. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Everyone is entitled to an opinion just because it differs from your own doesn’t make it wrong, lockdown is destroying livelihoods and business the same businesses that pay tax to fund the nhs and all other public services, it the wealth generators who are suffering remember all government money comes from wealth generating businesses not public services, the basic economic fact is we need to get back to work Absolutely Lockdowns will kill more people long-term than Covid ever will, that’s the bottom line and you still have idiots supporting it. Agreed, it's a farcical situation that needs to end, it's almost like all other illnesses have stopped to make way for Covid Hunger, poverty, mental health is rife now but that doesn't seem to matter anymore, I've had a life threatening illness since July, I've had no help or support from any direction at all, it's shameful! " It is an absolute scandal what is happening, but, resistance is growing by the day as we are now seeing. They have taken our jobs, our homes, with multiple business closures, our social lives, our families, our friends, our right to medical care because Covid is prioritised. They try to fine us if we step out of line according to whatever new rules they’ve put in place that week and now they are taking your children’s education. Perhaps even more worryingly in the process they have taken your sanity, your mental health and your hope. People have been slowly conditioned into fearing a virus instead of our government. You cannot get away from it, in the shops tannoy systems repeatedly blare out the mantra to keep your distance, wear the mask, adverts on tv, on the radio. Now we have vaccines that we’re told don’t stop you from spreading it. People need to wake the fuck up. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Peter Hitchens speaks common sense along with Neil Oliver. Pity it’s virtually absent on here. Plenty of sheeple believe what the MSM and government tell them unfortunately! Still, look on the brightside, we have eradicated the flu this winter!!!!! " Do you believe that? I don’t. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
