Just stop oil

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hilts

Were Covid vaccines declared 100% safe.?

Im not saying you are wrong but I dont recall this as most medications dont declare this. Always a chance of a reaction.

---

100%, 99.9%, 99.7%, 97%, 95%, it doesn't matter and you are just deflecting. The question is what if the climate scientists are wrong? The economy will be destroyed, food production will be reduced drastically and replaced with synthetic products, and peoples freedoms will be curtailed. Don't you think the What If scenarios need to be gamed out before this happens?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A Quiet Monkfish

I remember a couple of years ago some other green-related protesters sat down on the M6 and delayed traffic for a few hours. People missed planes, children missed their family holidays, people missed hospital appointments. But the saddest was a lady whose father was dying in hospital and she had been called by the nurse that he didn't have long. She was rushing up north to see him before he died. Suffice to say she didn't make it but would have done so without the 'protesters' stopping traffic.
These are selfish, arrogant upper class twats. If I were in front of the traffic I wouldn't have given them a kicking, I'd have drive over them..

---

Not such a Quiet Monkfish then. You would potentially kill people then? I’m not supporting or condoning what they are doing and there has to be a different method of getting their message across but punching people to the floor, then booting them in the head and, even more disturbing, actually driving over them......c’mon now!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cyril evans awaydays

https://www.skysports.com/football/n...rse-onto-pitch

Perhaps we should have these guys on standby, just in case!

---

Just Stop Oil won't be happy with that protest!

Anyone else remember a well known City fan trying to stop a Swansea game by dangling on the cross bar Canton Stand?

Didn't succeed and City lost the game but provided some entertainment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wales-Bales

100%, 99.9%, 99.7%, 97%, 95%, it doesn't matter and you are just deflecting. The question is what if the climate scientists are wrong? The economy will be destroyed, food production will be reduced drastically and replaced with synthetic products, and peoples freedoms will be curtailed. Don't you think the What If scenarios need to be gamed out before this happens?

---

Thanks. Didnt think they were declared 100% safe.

Your govt are doing a pretty good job of destroying the economy on their own without the climate scientists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hilts

Your govt are doing a pretty good job of destroying the economy on their own without the climate scientists.

---

I don't have a govt.

So what if the boffins are wrong on climate, what happens then? It will have to be something more substantial than Oops!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hilts

Thanks. Didnt think they were declared 100% safe

---

You are missing the point that they are not what they said they were.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jordi Culé

Just Stop Oil won't be happy with that protest!

Anyone else remember a well known City fan trying to stop a Swansea game by dangling on the cross bar Canton Stand?

Didn't succeed and City lost the game but provided some entertainment.

---

went to my very first city away game many moons ago with my former fellow rumney high school pupil never a dull moment when he was around and yes remembered that game :hehe:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wales-Bales

You are missing the point that they are not what they said they were.

---

Does that all make sense in GlueyWorld?

You stated that politicians and scientists claimed vaccines were 100% safe.

Hilts questioned that. Quite rightly as you are spouting invented BS again. If there were any such claims they were made by a couple of grandstanding politicians and drowned out by everyone else who gave support for the vaccine programme.

You then seem to accept that your claim is invented. 'They' could have said 99% safe, or 95% safe or.....

Rather than accepting that you have missed the point about false reassurances or exaggerated claims - which seemed to be 'the point' you were trying and failing to make - you accuse someone else.

Have I got that right? :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hilts

Were Covid vaccines declared 100% safe.?

Im not saying you are wrong but I dont recall this as most medications dont declare this. Always a chance of a reaction.

---

They were definitely not declared 100% safe. However, people who were under very little danger of any serious effects of Covid were persuaded - aggressively - to accept it to prevent passing it onto the the more vulnerable. Except that Pfizer has admitted their vaccine was never tested on whether it prevented transmission. I had 2 vaccines and a booster. I wouldn't have had any of them if I'd known this as I don't believe it posed much of a danger to me a healthy person with none of the vulnerable conditions. I won't have any more whatever I'm told because I don't like being lied to.

This is how madness infects. Vaccines were introduced at "warp speed" to try and introduce normalcy. The developers never claimed they tested for evasion of transmission but after they had done their job the gifted gang bellowed this out as proof of some kind of plot.

In reality they both significantly stopped transmission, regardless of whether they were tested for it and mitigated the effects if there was transmission.

I am not sure who lied to you that they were tested for transmission but if you ever get confronted with similar circumstances again I guess you have to go with your instincts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cyril evans awaydays

This is how madness infects. Vaccines were introduced at "warp speed" to try and introduce normalcy. The developers never claimed they tested for evasion of transmission but after they had done their job the gifted gang bellowed this out as proof of some kind of plot.

In reality they both significantly stopped transmission, regardless of whether they were tested for it and mitigated the effects if there was transmission.

I am not sure who lied to you that they were tested for transmission but if you ever get confronted with similar circumstances again I guess you have to go with your instincts.

---

If you didn't experience the "selfish bastard" pressure then lucky you. The argument that we should accept the vaccine to protect our elderly parents etc was a major theme. And it was not based on science at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Robin Friday's Ghost

If you didn't experience the "selfish bastard" pressure then lucky you. The argument that we should accept the vaccine to protect our elderly parents etc was a major theme. And it was not based on science at all.

---

If it wasn't based on science at all, what do you think it was based on?

Without the vaccine, life would have continued like late 2020, which I recall as being pretty unpleasant.

I had the vaccine earlier than most and was proud to have it etc and encouraged everyone to have it. But I also knew it was a risk.

We all knew it hadn't been tested as well as other drugs. I glossed over that in the knowledge that it may get us out of covid rules and also that the risk would be shared by 95% of the population, so at least we would all be fkd.

But I also found the politics surrounding the vaccine abhorent and very contradictory from people who normally preach autonomy over one's own body. Stuff like vaccine passports was outrageous really, particularly as we knew it didn't prevent us passing the disease on.

My Dad, who has numerous underlying health conditions, had the vaccine and got Ill and chose not to have his boosters. That was his choice in my opinion and I don't think he should have faced any consequence for it..as it happens he didnt as he does very little anyway, but some did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wales-Bales

100%, 99.9%, 99.7%, 97%, 95%, it doesn't matter and you are just deflecting. The question is what if the climate scientists are wrong? The economy will be destroyed, food production will be reduced drastically and replaced with synthetic products, and peoples freedoms will be curtailed. Don't you think the What If scenarios need to be gamed out before this happens?

---

Climate scientists aren't wrong though. And serious attempts to mitigate and adapt to climate change are being seriously hampered by people repeating uneducated idiotic statements like yours.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lardy

If it wasn't based on science at all, what do you think it was based on?

Without the vaccine, life would have continued like late 2020, which I recall as being pretty unpleasant.

---

I was specifically referring to the campaign to urge us to be vaccinated to protect others. The Pfizer vaccine had not been tested on whether it presented transference to others, although we were not made aware of this. Therefore this campaign, during which people who chose not to have the vaccine were vilified as selfish, was not based on science.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamesWales

I had the vaccine earlier than most and was proud to have it etc and encouraged everyone to have it. But I also knew it was a risk.

We all knew it hadn't been tested as well as other drugs. I glossed over that in the knowledge that it may get us out of covid rules and also that the risk would be shared by 95% of the population, so at least we would all be fkd.

But I also found the politics surrounding the vaccine abhorent and very contradictory from people who normally preach autonomy over one's own body. Stuff like vaccine passports was outrageous really, particularly as we knew it didn't prevent us passing the disease on.

My Dad, who has numerous underlying health conditions, had the vaccine and got Ill and chose not to have his boosters. That was his choice in my opinion and I don't think he should have faced any consequence for it..as it happens he didnt as he does very little anyway, but some did.

---

If your father had passed it on to one of your children (partially through not being fully vaccinated) and that child suffered consequences (not that I wish that on a little Jimbolina) that would have been ok with you then? I think we both know it would not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by az city

Climate scientists aren't wrong though. And serious attempts to mitigate and adapt to climate change are being seriously hampered by people repeating uneducated idiotic statements like yours.

---

That's your opinion. There are plenty of climate scientists who disagree, so less of the personal insults or the Boss will be after you!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by az city

If your father had passed it on to one of your children (partially through not being fully vaccinated) and that child suffered consequences (not that I wish that on a little Jimbolina) that would have been ok with you then? I think we both know it would not.

---

"If" is not science :biggrin:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wales-Bales

That's your opinion. There are plenty of climate scientists who disagree, so less of the personal insults or the Boss will be after you!

---

There are NOT "plenty of climate scientists who disagree". That's rubbish as is your claim I just insulted you. I insulted your statements not you as a person. Most of your statements are complete and utter cobblers. (I can't say 100% but I estimate 99.99%.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by az city

There are NOT "plenty of climate scientists who disagree". That's rubbish as is your claim I just insulted you. I insulted your statements not you as a person. Most of your statements are complete and utter cobblers. (I can't say 100% but I estimate 99.99%.)

---

You only hear the news that they want you to hear, so any scientist who disagrees is silenced as they don't have the right narrative.

https://www.skygroup.sky/article/beh...by-tv-says-sky

Here's a question for the conspiracy theorists - why? Why would the governments, media, scientists etc want to con everyone into believing that man-made climate change is destroying the planet? It's inconvenient for governments. The oil, car, airline, construction etc lobbies exert massive influence on governments all over the world and are generally backed by the likes of Murdoch who control huge swathes of the world's press.
So who is "they" and why would they be lying to us about climate change/silencing the few question it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Robin Friday's Ghost

They were definitely not declared 100% safe. However, people who were under very little danger of any serious effects of Covid were persuaded - aggressively - to accept it to prevent passing it onto the the more vulnerable. Except that Pfizer has admitted their vaccine was never tested on whether it prevented transmission. I had 2 vaccines and a booster. I wouldn't have had any of them if I'd known this as I don't believe it posed much of a danger to me a healthy person with none of the vulnerable conditions. I won't have any more whatever I'm told because I don't like being lied to.

---

I think you are looking at it now with hindsight, at the time most people were worried. I was in good health on no meds no issues, so not worried in the slightest. I did have an elderly mother though, so on the advice that I was slightly less likely to get it and pass it on to her I had two and the booster too. The other reason I had it was to allow everything to reopen quicker and damage the economy slightly less.

Overall they are as safe as getting covid, so it was no harm in having the injections for me, and the saved the lives of lots of elderly and ill weak people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Undercoverinwurzelland

Here's a question for the conspiracy theorists - why? Why would the governments, media, scientists etc want to con everyone into believing that man-made climate change is destroying the planet? It's inconvenient for governments. The oil, car, airline, construction etc lobbies exert massive influence on governments all over the world and are generally backed by the likes of Murdoch who control huge swathes of the world's press.
So who is "they" and why would they be lying to us about climate change/silencing the few question it?

---

This is exactly the question. Oil companies have been the richest in the world for decades, only recently overtaken by technology but still immensely rich and powerful as the world runs on oil. Western governments are always sucking up to OPEC countries because of this reliance.

The idea that some group could buy out basically every publishing scientist in the world without any pushback any response from oil companies or governments is beyond insane. Simply no one is rich enough to do this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Undercoverinwurzelland

Here's a question for the conspiracy theorists - why? Why would the governments, media, scientists etc want to con everyone into believing that man-made climate change is destroying the planet? It's inconvenient for governments. The oil, car, airline, construction etc lobbies exert massive influence on governments all over the world and are generally backed by the likes of Murdoch who control huge swathes of the world's press.
So who is "they" and why would they be lying to us about climate change/silencing the few question it?

---

A new economic system that doesn't rely on people and growth? In which case, what happens to all the people?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wales-Bales

A new economic system that doesn't rely on people and growth? In which case, what happens to all the people?

---

But who do you think wants that? And again, why? The richest and most powerful in the world are doing very nicely already from growth based on people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Undercoverinwurzelland

But who do you think wants that? And again, why? The richest and most powerful in the world are doing very nicely already from growth based on people.

---

Also growth is not infinite. Continuously busting a gut for "growth" will bust the planet. The planet is finite unlike human imagination.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by North Cardiff Blue

I think you are looking at it now with hindsight, at the time most people were worried. I was in good health on no meds no issues, so not worried in the slightest. I did have an elderly mother though, so on the advice that I was slightly less likely to get it and pass it on to her I had two and the booster too. The other reason I had it was to allow everything to reopen quicker and damage the economy slightly less.

Overall they are as safe as getting covid, so it was no harm in having the injections for me, and the saved the lives of lots of elderly and ill weak people.

---

The advice that you were less likely to get it was correct and based on testing, albeit not as rigorous us usual.

The advice that you were less likely to pass it on to your mother was not based on testing or any other scientific evidence. But we were told it would help stop the spread nevertheless. That's what I object to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamesWales

No it isn't. And those protests were for the right to vote and for the right not to be discriminated against because you were born black. Totally different scenarios

---

Glad you said it , climate change is built on theory as the planet could do something completely different in 20 year time ,the right to vote and discrimination were acts of reality at the time .

What we need is a debate o how we do get the net zero id scarp the bloody date is stupid and just build a world based on renewables that did that hurt the poor it seems to be a rich person play thing agenda and probably backed by far left loops who don't really car e as they can afford the electric cars , solar panels , and it sounds wonderful in the local wine bar as they glug their over price prosecco and real ale ..and say well said Jeremy .. that a nice jacket did you get if from a charity shop in Kensington

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by life on mars

Glad you said it , climate change is built on theory as the planet could do something completely different in 20 year time ,the right to vote and discrimination were acts of reality at the time .

What we need is a debate o how we do get the net zero id scarp the bloody date is stupid and just build a world based on renewables that did that hurt the poor it seems to be a rich person play thing agenda and probably backed by far left loops who don't really car e as they can afford the electric cars , solar panels , and it sounds wonderful in the local wine bar as they glug their over price prosecco and real ale ..and say well said Jeremy .. that a nice jacket did you get if from a charity shop in Kensington

---

Climate change is indeed a scientific theory, but scientific theory has a specific meaning, and it's perhaps not what you think it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamesWales

No it isn't. And those protests were for the right to vote and for the right not to be discriminated against because you were born black. Totally different scenarios

---

Who are we kidding Jimbo, if you were alive back then you'd have taken the enlightened centrist approach as you always do and would be saying 'I'm for the right for women to vote but I'm against the ruckus they're making'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by life on mars

Glad you said it , climate change is built on theory as the planet could do something completely different in 20 year time ,the right to vote and discrimination were acts of reality at the time .

What we need is a debate o how we do get the net zero id scarp the bloody date is stupid and just build a world based on renewables that did that hurt the poor it seems to be a rich person play thing agenda and probably backed by far left loops who don't really car e as they can afford the electric cars , solar panels , and it sounds wonderful in the local wine bar as they glug their over price prosecco and real ale ..and say well said Jeremy .. that a nice jacket did you get if from a charity shop in Kensington

---

Why do you always say the left are loopy?
Better than the rabid right.:thumbup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jeepster

Why do you always say the left are loopy?
Better than the rabid right.:thumbup:

---

A lot more intelligent and human that's for sure!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr Soul '68

Hate to disagree with you Sludge, but this was a party political broadcast on someone who has hit the nail fairly and squarely on the head.

---

100%

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cityhammer

100%

---

I think it's bollocks better off in the Daily Mail

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doucas

Who are we kidding Jimbo, if you were alive back then you'd have taken the enlightened centrist approach as you always do and would be saying 'I'm for the right for women to vote but I'm against the ruckus they're making'.

---

I absolutely would have been on the side of women not having to throw themselves under horses to get the vote Ducky.

Remember, it's not me who is ever keen to overule election or referendum results when it doesn't suit me👍

I do take your wider point, I just think they have means to protest and they should do it properly. Thats what we do in democracies. I also happen to have some sympathy for their cause (if not their means) and instead of having any sympathy I just think they are bunch of arrogant, selfish spoilt posh kids. And their behaviour encourages millions to think the same

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lardy

If it wasn't based on science at all, what do you think it was based on?

Without the vaccine, life would have continued like late 2020, which I recall as being pretty unpleasant.

---

Didnt Born Guessing recently admit in questioning into the covid pandemic that he NEVER read the scientific reports? So guess the vaccination programme in Wales was not based on science.

Meanwhile, referring to the actual title of this thread, The Times states that the PM will go soft on green policies to ‘woo voters’ right next to a photo of burning Greece - and without any trace of irony.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave Blue

Meanwhile, referring to the actual title of this thread, The Times states that the PM will go soft on green policies to ‘woo voters’ right next to a photo of burning Greece - and without any trace of irony.

---

Bang goes his blue wall.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave Blue

Meanwhile, referring to the actual title of this thread, The Times states that the PM will go soft on green policies to ‘woo voters’ right next to a photo of burning Greece - and without any trace of irony.

---

Looks like Sunak is going down the 30p Lee route - fight the next election on culture wars because there's nothing else they can fight it on.

They’re entitled to their opinion and their protests.

Personally I don’t care about net zero because UK living standards are being lowered for it whilst other countries are not taking as much as a hit as us.