Weston Super Saint

What about people who don't like university lecturers, or are they intuitively discounted?

Not a lot of that makes sense. Children don't pose a lower risk (of transmission), hence why they closed the schools, keep up. Children do have a lower risk profile when it comes to ending up in hospital seriously ill. Perhaps you've got yourself all confused and muddled up the two completely different concepts.

That's two people who won't be able to pass on the infection to someone who has been vaccinated. That's how vaccinations work. I've highlighted the relevant bit from my previous question that you've ignored...

Not sure what your point is! Because a country with a very long history of human rights violations has introduced vaccine passports, then the UK economy couldn't possibly recover quickly without them as well? Nice to see you've ignored the question about medical ethics, too tough for you?

I'll take that as you have no idea how to answer that one then Easy to call someone 'thick' and then not be able to back it up, eh?

To be fair, Turkish hasn't said he no longer has the ability to process information and act intuitively when the situation dictates, he's just stated that through self development he has learnt to apply logic and restraint instead of jumping to conclusions without considering all of the available information. Shame this self development phase seems to have passed you by

Go for it, enlighten me, let me into the secret of how a 19 year old who has refused a vaccine is more likely to pass on the virus to someone who has had a vaccine than a sixteen year old who isn't eligible for a vaccine....

Absolute horseshit! The most reluctant age groups to take up the vaccine are 18-29. The same age group that is statistically one of the least likely to end up in hospital, so hospitals won't be overrun as a result of that age group refusing the vaccine. The economy can quite quickly get moving without the need for vaccine passports. Have you considered medical confidentiality or is that not important anymore? Should we make people wear a gold star on their chest if they have herpes or a silver one if they have chlamydia, I mean, how else would you tell right?

Ah right, that explains why they closed the schools....

Not sure why people are getting so upset that a minority are refusing to have a jab. Presumably those that are upset about it are planning to have their own jab when they are eligible / have already had it. If so, what the fuck are you worried about? You will have been vaccinated and therefore protected. What difference will it make to you if someone else has their vaccine or not? Surely they only pose a risk to themselves if they refuse... Give it a couple of weeks after I've had mine and I won't give a shiny shit who sits near me on a plane or train as I know my risk will be diminished to the point of being barely more than a heavy cold.

You're kidding right? Is someone who has refused the jab, more, or less likely than a kid to pass on the virus if they are infected? There is no difference if neither of them have a vaccination passport. That flight to Malaga will be out of reach to both...

Employment requirements are very different to shopping / leisure requirements! What about kids, they aren't currently planned to be vaccinated, so won't be eligible for a vaccination passport. How are they any different to someone who has refused the jab?

Turn it on it's head - what right do private companies have to demand you meet certain criteria before they take your money? Would this open a can of worms, first there's an insistence on having had a covid jab, then an insistence that you've had an MMR, flu jab, tetanus booster etc etc.

Thank goodness they've finally come to their senses! No more misogyny from Hasbro. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-56200811

Hoping it will stay dry this weekend so I can test out the new summer bike now that it is built 😁

Isn't it more accurate to say that social media is more of a problem when it comes to racism than football - given your statement regarding incidents and tolerance at football being low? Granted, football is the catalyst in this instance, however, SM is the conduit that allows the racism to flourish. Edit : just seen your later post with the same conclusion

Nobody has asked the most important question yet. What colour will the vaccine passports be?

Jesus wept! You asked (hopefully you'll remember this bit) : I then wrote a number of sentences outlining what had actually happened and that he didn't, in fact, hand a large contract to one of his mates - at that point I asked how has Hancock acted unlawfully there. I then pointed out that you appear to have confused that with the actual court case which had absolutely nothing to do with him or anyone else handing out contracts, but everything to do with not reporting what was handed out in the prescribed time limit. As Benji has already pointed out, this is NOT criminal law. So far, all the court has done is pass a judgement that a law has not been adhered to, but has acknowledged that the information that was required to be published, has been published, albeit later than it should have been. You may be struggling with the concept of law but unless it is a criminal case even a Managing Director wouldn't end up in court unless someone takes out a civil suit against them - usually this will happen in order for the injured party to receive recompense for the wrong doing. In this case, the 'civil litigation' was started by the Good Law Project. The case has been heard and the judge has stated that the law wasn't followed to the letter, but that he also understood the reason for the delay. That's it, end of case, end of judicial review, slap on the wrist for the Health Department. No-one is going to be hung, drawn and quartered.

Step 3 - apparently allows for 10,000 at Wembley. Even they should be able to muster up 5,000 to fill their allocation

I've never disagreed that the department he is in charge of acted unlawfully. I've disagreed with the accusation you made about how the law was broken, but not that it was. In fact I even said this in my first post :

Ah, I see, so you are combining two seperate events and coming up with your own answers. The Department of Health / Government was judged to have broken the law by failing to publish contract awards within 30 days, not because Matt Hancock 'handed a contract to his mate'. https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-governments-failure-to-publish-covid-contracts-details-was-unlawful-high-court-rules-12222826 Although as the Senior Minister, Matt Hancock will have accountability for that error. Still, why let the truth get in the way of a bit of mud slinging eh? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/nov/26/matt-hancock-former-neighbour-won-covid-test-kit-contract-after-whatsapp-message You have managed to get one thing right though. Hinpack is indeed the subject of an investigation by the MHRA, although it would be way too early to draw any conclusions yet.... https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/matt-hancock-alex-bourne-nhs-covid-probe-test-tubes-b920674.html

I don't think he 'handed the contract to one of his mates'. From what I've read, the person in question sent him a whatsapp, Hancock then pointed him in the direction of the website that every company was freely able to submit their details on. I seem to recall a TV advert asking business owners to do just that. Not sure what the 'no experience' is meant to mean. The guy owns a packaging firm that was making plastic packaging for caterers. They changed their processes and now make plastic medical vials (used in covid testing) and plastic funnels, it doesn't seem like advanced rocketry. How has Hancock acted unlawfully there - or are you getting that mixed up with the fact that his department did not produce the required 'transparency' paperwork within the timescale but were about 2 weeks late, focussing on other things as a priotity during a global pandemic? If it's the latter, then he's banged to rights and should be serving 20 years at least for such an heinous crime!

I wouldn't worry too much. They will only 'all' be back for a couple of days. As soon as a kid in a year group tests positive, they'll send the whole year out for two weeks like they did the last time. Not sure what the reasoning will be this time though. Last time it was to protect the grand parents, but they've all been jabbed now...

Were they not able to ask for better insulation?

Class is not a requirement in order to consider that vulgar