When it expires, you'll be able to generate a new QR code in the app.I just fired up my NHS app to get my COVID pass and apparently it expires on 13th Jan 2022 7.42pm
Not that I plan to go anywhere ...
Vaccinated 20th Feb, 8th May, Nov 15th ...
When it expires, you'll be able to generate a new QR code in the app.I just fired up my NHS app to get my COVID pass and apparently it expires on 13th Jan 2022 7.42pm
Not that I plan to go anywhere ...
Vaccinated 20th Feb, 8th May, Nov 15th ...
I thought the blue tick meant that Twitter had verified it's who is supposed to be.That's not really his account, it's a Corbyn cliche meme generator bot.
I thought the blue tick meant that Twitter had verified it's who is supposed to be.
duly notedIt is his account. I think Lynn humour is going over heads
Yeh challenges through the law courts are almost always on one of two bases, that something is illegal or something is unlawful. Strange thatAbsolutely there will but it would be on the basis of the Government has acted illegally (this particular shower have form for that) without involving Parliament, quite possibly they would lose as well. But the Govt has the advantage that it could then pass a bill through Parliament altering the law and making it legal (got form for that as well)
I thought the blue tick meant that Twitter had verified it's who is supposed to be.
What else would it be on? things like right, wrong. commonsense and belief are all subjective.Yeh challenges through the law courts are almost always on one of two bases, that something is illegal or something is unlawful. Strange that
It's because the courts are courts of law not courts of justicesWhat else would it be on? things like right, wrong. commonsense and belief are all subjective.
For what's worth I don't think Boris will do this, Doubt he could get his own backbenchers onboard and he probably doesn't want to rely on Sir Keir the Spineless too often.
Beside if a company wants to make sure everyone is vaccinated there are better ways such as putting it in the contract of new starters especially if they're companies with a fast turnover or even by giving out bonuses/payrises in return for proof of vaccination. Talk of Equal Opportunities wouldn't cut it, that's meant to protect people from being discriminated against on the basis of things they can't really change such as race or sex, Changing your vaccination status takes like 15-20 mins and most of that is just sitting down.
Yes, people should be nudged, let them think they have a choice but make it so they can't function normally without a vaccineAnswer to the thread question is no. It should not be mandatory.
What I'm seeing is slippery slope to gradually make everyday life so difficult that in effect it is mandatory.
This goes against what was considered usual practise with vaccinations. Persuasion , education and making them free to those who wanted them.
Im talking as someone who couldn't wait to get vaccine. I've had my booster.
I also think health issues should enshrine individual freedom. What is done to our bodies should be up to the individual.
Take blood donations. One of the better things about this country is that blood donations are voluntary. I'm a Platelet donor. I do it not because the State tells me to but because I as a free individual want to help my fellow man.
Im finding since the pandemic has gone on and not ended a worringly tendency from some that compulsion is good for the social good. This is really not how I see it.
Read this by Meadway also urging caution,
Coronavirus Isn’t Going Anywhere | Novara Media
The Omicron variant is just the latest reminder that Covid-19 is here to stay. The left must strategise accordingly, writes James Meadway.novaramedia.com
Justice is even more subjective than right or wrong, Courts are places where people with opposing often completely incompatible views end up, I would imagine a lot of people leave courtrooms convinced they have/have not got justice.It's because the courts are courts of law not courts of justices
That's because they are courts of law and law imposes an array of ideological and political constraints on the operation of the judiciary, not to mention the views of the presiding figures and their prejudices - so while the courts may issue verdicts, judgements and sentences these will be done in accordance with the law and not with justice.Justice is even more subjective than right or wrong, Courts are places where people with opposing often completely incompatible views end up, I would imagine a lot of people leave courtrooms convinced they have/have not got justice.
I'm guessing it's because we will need annual / regular boosters, like people who have the flu jab have to get it every year.Yes I noticed the same. Why is there an expiry date?
That's actually a completely reasonable statement that I totally agree with but are you arguing it's a bad thing? a good thing? or just a thing? If your argument is that the system isn't perfect then yeah but no system ever will be and so far no-one has come up with a better idea.That's because they are courts of law and law imposes an array of ideological and political constraints on the operation of the judiciary, not to mention the views of the presiding figures and their prejudices - so while the courts may issue verdicts, judgements and sentences these will be done in accordance with the law and not with justice.
This is an arguement to have post Covid rule. (and one I am sure will happen).Your employer can't force you to have a jab without changing your contract of employment and for that they need your agreement, but and truly massive BUT here any employment contract is subservient to the law and the unwritten assumption in any contract is that you obey the law.
If the Govt passes a law saying that any employer can require its staff to have a jab then that's it. If you refuse you can be fired and no union can do anything about it since it is a legitimate dismissal.
I am simply saying there are reasons why the courts do not dispense justice and while you may think that the British system of courts marks the apotheosis of judicial process I am really not so sure. But a topic for another threadThat's actually a completely reasonable statement that I totally agree with but are you arguing it's a bad thing? a good thing? or just a thing? If your argument is that the system isn't perfect then yeah but no system ever will be and so far no-one has come up with a better idea.
People come up with good ideas about all manner of stuff every day of the week. They get ignored, and, depending on where you are in the world, fined, imprisoned, ridiculed or executed.so far no-one has come up with a better idea.
Good point but I suspect where courts are concerned all of these ideas are variations of the current system (some great, some good, some crap) and some legal systems are undoubtably 'fairer' and more 'just' than others.People come up with good ideas about all manner of stuff every day of the week. They get ignored, and, depending on where you are in the world, fined, imprisoned, ridiculed or executed.
Way off topic, indeed. Nonetheless it's worth remembering that our court system was created to protect the idea of property and the property-owning classes. You didn't get tried by your peers if you were a villein, instead it was assumed you were a villain. Nowadays most crime is either dealt with by on-the-spot fines or in magistrates courts. Appeals are heard and judged by people who went to Eton, or similar. Those crimes where a jury decides are getting fewer and fewer and procedures such as jury selection are weighed in favour of the prosecution. I could go on, but I won't for the time being.Good point but I suspect where courts are concerned all of these ideas are variations of the current system (some great, some good, some crap) and some legal systems are undoubtably 'fairer' and more 'just' than others.
But so far I'm not aware of anyone coming up with any ideas that are both fundamentally different and fairer than the idea of a trial before a jury of your peers (imperfect though that might be).
There are plenty of worse systems no-one is denying that.
Though this is way off topic now.
This. Agree 100%I don't like the "nudge" thing, but if some things become harder for the unvaxxed purely out of reasonable measures to keep others safe, then that's just tough.
What strikes me as sad is that it should be such an easy argument, but I don't see it really being made.
If you'd asked me prior to all of this how we'd respond, I'd have said I'd be expecting to see public service announcements where an unvaccinated teenager accidentally infects Granny at Christmas, stuff on the telly about how they made a vaccine so quickly, lots and lots of infographics to help people understand the stats, emphasis that people are lucky to have the opportunity of FREE vaccinations, lots about how transmission rates are affected, and programmes about previous pandemics, re-constructions of where we might be in the absence of a vaccine, interviews with people who were involved in the creation of the vaccine... national success story etc. etc. and also coverage of the effort to get the vaccine out to other countries (with a much more robust effort recognising the importance of that). Bits between local programmes telling people where vaccines are available locally, maybe. Fact sheets through people's doors debunking some of the more common dumb objections that might come up...
Maybe a free mask when you get the jab...
View attachment 300921
Instead it's practically tumbleweed, unless I'm just not watching the right channels.
Next you'll be after the obese, the drinkers, smokers, and drug usersDo we take into account that the majority of hospitalised cases, the cases of people who were not vaccinated are costing the NHS/taxpayers the most money and disrupting the normal running of the NHS the most.
That version of reality is not demonstrated by all of the data though. It was expected that the majority of hospitalised Covid patients would end up being vaccinated ones, not unvaccinated ones, due to the high proportion of people that were vaccinated and the less than 100% protection vaccines offered. And indeed that seemed to be the case in data stretching back months now. It may not necessarily be the case when it comes to patients in intensive care though, I kept receiving mixed messages about that and havent yet seen enough data to draw my own solid conclusions. But thats also a story about who is deemed to be appropriate to give intensive care to, ie a fair portion of very elderly and frail patients dont end up on ventilators, and they dont all even get admitted to hospital, especially during some intense stages of the pandemic.Do we take into account that the majority of hospitalised cases, the cases of people who were not vaccinated are costing the NHS/taxpayers the most money and disrupting the normal running of the NHS the most.
You make a good point.Next you'll be after the obese, the drinkers, smokers, and drug users
ab
Yes, people should be nudged, let them think they have a choice but make it so they can't function normally without a vaccine