The jab ..

[z4pilot]

Clearly the pub industry is going to argue against a passport type system - they want to get back to bars packed 3 deep as soon as possible and anything that could stop half the target demographic getting in is going to get the thumbs down. More to the point, if you subscribe to the view that vaccinated people can carry and transmit the virus, and you haven't had the jab, would you even want to be in a packed pub? You might believe in your personal invincibility, but would you want to risk it? I bet the risk from vaccine complications is lower than your risk of catching the disease in that environment and running the lottery that you won't suffer damage.

 

[Deleted member 32480]

But if the government says that if they don't and they have to have social distancing (so they can't have as many people in) so less profit then this will be interesting to see how it pans out.

 

[Nanu]

If you actually listen to what he said it was you may need a jab before going to the pub, but that would be up to landlords.

No change to now. If you are a landlord you can refuse entry to anyone you choose and don't even have to give a reason why.

It's going to be interesting to see how this one pans out.

At the movement we are treating the under 60's like children. "If you are a good boy today (get the jab) you can have some playstation time this weekend (pub).

When it all gets interesting is if they are able to implement social distancing in pubs where they say that if un-vaccinated people are allowed in then they want social distancing (so 2 meter, plastic screens, etc) = less people in the pub and less revenue.

My guess is it's all bravado "paper talk" at present to try and get the numbers up in younger people. I think it will work as it looks like alot of people are at breaking point at the moment. Many I know don't feel they need it and don't want it but will take it to get back to normal life if they have a load of restrictions placed on them.

If I was a human right lawyer I would be licking my lips at the prospect of making some serious money over the next 6 months.

People keep quoting human rights but what exact rights would be breached.
Art 4 slavery or servitude not applicable, Art 5 liberty and security of person, you still have it whether you have the jab or not, the freedom of choice is still there. Art 6&7 civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge, your not committing any offence if you choose not to be vaccinated. Art 8 respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. You still have that if not vaccinated. Art 9 freedom of thought, conscience and religion. Not effected. Art 10 freedom of expression, being able to hold opinions receive and impart information and ideas. Again not effected. Art 11 is perhaps the one people may think infringed, peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others. That would not change as licensees and businesses can prevent you from entering premises or obtaining their services now even without Covid, so nothing would change there either. Art 12 and above relates to discrimination on any grounds such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status. Again not being vaccinated would not effect any of these.

So if you were that human rights lawyer, licking your lips, what Human Rights exactly are being breached?????

 

[Deleted member 32480]

If you actually listen to what he said it was you may need a jab before going to the pub, but that would be up to landlords.

No change to now. If you are a landlord you can refuse entry to anyone you choose and don't even have to give a reason why.

It's going to be interesting to see how this one pans out.

At the movement we are treating the under 60's like children. "If you are a good boy today (get the jab) you can have some playstation time this weekend (pub).

When it all gets interesting is if they are able to implement social distancing in pubs where they say that if un-vaccinated people are allowed in then they want social distancing (so 2 meter, plastic screens, etc) = less people in the pub and less revenue.

My guess is it's all bravado "paper talk" at present to try and get the numbers up in younger people. I think it will work as it looks like alot of people are at breaking point at the moment. Many I know don't feel they need it and don't want it but will take it to get back to normal life if they have a load of restrictions placed on them.

If I was a human right lawyer I would be licking my lips at the prospect of making some serious money over the next 6 months.

People keep quoting human rights but what exact rights would be breached.
Art 4 slavery or servitude not applicable, Art 5 liberty and security of person, you still have it whether you have the jab or not, the freedom of choice is still there. Art 6&7 civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge, your not committing any offence if you choose not to be vaccinated. Art 8 respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. You still have that if not vaccinated. Art 9 freedom of thought, conscience and religion. Not effected. Art 10 freedom of expression, being able to hold opinions receive and impart information and ideas. Again not effected. Art 11 is perhaps the one people may think infringed, peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others. That would not change as licensees and businesses can prevent you from entering premises or obtaining their services now even without Covid, so nothing would change there either. Art 12 and above relates to discrimination on any grounds such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status. Again not being vaccinated would not effect any of these.

So if you were that human rights lawyer, licking your lips, what Human Rights exactly are being breached?????

I am no Lawyer (and I doubt you are too) but I am pretty sure we have the control over what we put in our bodies.

I am sure a vaccine that has only been signed off for emergency use and is still very much in the research stage (until 2023) is probably something that we should be given a choice over.

I think there will be many a legal case if say an office manager told all his staff that they had to get a jab and someone was damaged or died because of it. I can link you the most up to date reports for the two major vaccines concerning the side effects so far they have brought on if you like?

Have a good look at Section 45E Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984. That might prove an area for further research. I don't know to much about all of this.

 

[z4pilot]

But the point being made was about being refused access to a pub, not being forced to be be vaccinated by your manager?

 

[Deleted member 32480]

But the point being made was about being refused access to a pub, not being forced to be be vaccinated by your manager?

My point about the legalities was more a generalist point about where we are at present.

 

[z4pilot]

But the point being made was about being refused access to a pub, not being forced to be be vaccinated by your manager?

My point about the legalities was more a generalist point about where we are at present.

Ever considered a future in politics?

 

[Deleted member 32480]

But the point being made was about being refused access to a pub, not being forced to be be vaccinated by your manager?

My point about the legalities was more a generalist point about where we are at present.

Ever considered a future in politics?

Is that your polite way of calling me a c*nt?

 

[z4pilot]

My point about the legalities was more a generalist point about where we are at present.

Ever considered a future in politics?

Is that your polite way of calling me a c*nt?

I was more thinking about your talent for obfuscation, but now you mention it... :wink:

 

[Nanu]

I am no Lawyer (and I doubt you are too) but I am pretty sure we have the control over what we put in our bodies.

I am sure a vaccine that has only been signed off for emergency use and is still very much in the research stage (until 2023) is probably something that we should be given a choice over.

I think there will be many a legal case if say an office manager told all his staff that they had to get a jab and someone was damaged or died because of it. I can link you the most up to date reports for the two major vaccines concerning the side effects so far they have brought on if you like?

Have a good look at Section 45E Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984. That might prove an area for further research. I don't know to much about all of this.
[/quote]
No lawyer but from a legal background.

Yes we all have control over what we put in our bodies and that choice is not being eroded by anyone. It is still your choice. If anyone says you must have the jab or loose your job, it is still your choice if you want to put the vaccine in your body. Nothing changes other than the consequences of your choice. If you subsequently have the jab and it proves damaging then you can sue the vaccine producer. If you loose your employment for refusing the jab, you can try to pursue that via an industrial tribunal, although the employers legal obligations under the Health & Safety Act, I suspect may trump any claim you may have. As for Human Rights Legislation, no chance because nobody is taking away your choice.

If a business such as an airline or pub, requires that you have the jab before they allow you to take advantage of their facilities, that is their legal right. It does not impact on your choice whether to have the vaccine or not. Its still your choice but be prepared to live with the consequences.

Stay safe whatever your choice.

 

[Nanu]

I don't understand this either. Seems to be no talk on natural immunity and all from the vaccine. It's like it's been discounted.

Nightclubs (not that I have been to one in 8 odd years) have bouncers on the doors checking ID. Some city pubs do too? Can't be to hard to check an app on the phone alongside their ID.

The funny thing is you have all this noise but the vast majority of people who work in pubs are under the age of 35 and won't have had the opportunity to be vaccinated anyway by the time they open. Let alone all the youngsters that are desperate for a pint and to see their mates.

Yeah I just dont buy it, they wont risk losing the business especially with how humped they are financially, the wee card things that people are getting after being vaccinated do they even have your info on them, I heard it was just a generic bit of card so easily falsified

It is just a card but if you download the NHS App which gives you access to your files, you having had the jab is recorded. As I understand it The Israelis have developed a link to something similar which is a personal bar code which the Govt are looking at. How easy would it be to scan a barcode and match it to say a boarding pass at an airport before boarding a flight.

 

[Nanu]

But the point being made was about being refused access to a pub, not being forced to be be vaccinated by your manager?

The owner of a pub, shop or any business can refuse access to anyone now should they wish and don't have to give a reason. Some pubs and nightclubs don't allow access to anyone in jeans or trainers. Just as easy to say no jab no access should they want. That would be a business decision for them.

 

[Nictrix]

If you subsequently have the jab and it proves damaging then you can sue the vaccine producer.

I dont think you can sue the vaccine provider for this, Im sure there was some bill or law put through at the beginning of all this taking the responsibility from them and limiting any compensation given by the government.

 

[Deleted member 32480]

The owner of a pub, shop or any business can refuse access to anyone now should they wish and don't have to give a reason. Some pubs and nightclubs don't allow access to anyone in jeans or trainers. Just as easy to say no jab no access should they want. That would be a business decision for them.

So are you saying that they can refuse entry to an under 16 year old, a pregnant person, some one with a disability (who can't take it) or someone who won't take it for religious reasons?

 

[Deleted member 32480]

If you subsequently have the jab and it proves damaging then you can sue the vaccine producer.

Not true.

The UK government has granted pharmaceutical giants a legal indemnity protecting it from being sued, enabling its coronavirus vaccine to be rolled out.

 

[Flyingfifer]

If you subsequently have the jab and it proves damaging then you can sue the vaccine producer.

Thats outright false

Link 1
Link 2
Link 3

If side effects appear down the line you're utterly f*cked :roll:

 

[Deleted member 32480]

If you subsequently have the jab and it proves damaging then you can sue the vaccine producer.

Thats outright false

Link 1
Link 2
Link 3

If side effects appear down the line you're utterly f*cked :roll:

You mean ones like these?

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/972832/COVID-19_mRNA_Pfizer-_BioNTech_Vaccine_Analysis_Print.pdf

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/972833/COVID-19_AstraZeneca_Vaccine_Analysis_Print.pdf

 

[Flyingfifer]

If you subsequently have the jab and it proves damaging then you can sue the vaccine producer.

Thats outright false

Link 1
Link 2
Link 3

If side effects appear down the line you're utterly f*cked :roll:

You mean ones like these?

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/972832/COVID-19_mRNA_Pfizer-_BioNTech_Vaccine_Analysis_Print.pdf

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/972833/COVID-19_AstraZeneca_Vaccine_Analysis_Print.pdf

Indeed and worse although obviously hopefully that doesnt happen

 

[z4pilot]

If you subsequently have the jab and it proves damaging then you can sue the vaccine producer.

Thats outright false

Link 1
Link 2
Link 3

If side effects appear down the line you're utterly f*cked :roll:

You mean ones like these?

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/972832/COVID-19_mRNA_Pfizer-_BioNTech_Vaccine_Analysis_Print.pdf

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/972833/COVID-19_AstraZeneca_Vaccine_Analysis_Print.pdf

I'm sorry, but what exactly is the context of these reports?

Where does it say that any of these conditions or deaths are caused by vaccines? You do realise that people will continue to suffer from conditions and die irrespective of whether they have been vaccinated? The key is whether any of these are directly attributable to having been administered a vaccine. These vaccines have been scrutinised like no others in history and every study or investigation has pronounced them safe for use. Whatever these are, they aren't vaccine side effects. It even lists congenital conditions - you do understand the definition of congenital don't you?

You have banged on often enough about the government's project fear, and yet you push half baked rubbish like this. What exactly is your game?

 

[Deleted member 32480]

I'm sorry, but what exactly is the context of these reports?

1st page of each report.

Where does it say that any of these conditions or deaths are caused by vaccines?

100% it doesn't confirm nor deny. My understanding is they are incidents reported by the drug company that have happened after the jab. I agree with what you say that some will be coincidence but as we get more data in from the trials as times passes and it's rolled out globally we will get a much clearer understanding than say the ~45.5k people that were in the initial pfizer trial before it was approved for emergency use (we currently in the uk are vaccinating at times more than 10 times that amount on a daily basis).

These vaccines have been scrutinised like no others

I agree with this statement.

The key is whether any of these are directly attributable to having been administered a vaccine.

Can we rule out that everything in this document wasn't? Obviously we can exclude the numb arms etc?