This is not a covid thread!

[simon field]

Who is richer Johnson or Corbyn?

I’ve not seen their bank accounts so I have no idea.
Is there a point to the question?

I know that Jeremy is considerably older than Johnson, and doesn’t have the expenses of a philanderer.

Is that what you mean?

 

[Deleted member 59730]

I do not exactly have an opportunity to do that. All the immigrants I know are people are affluent people who came here legally.

As a child I was an immigrant. My wife's mother escaped Franco's Spain as an immigrant. If we look back a bit many of us are not living where our ancestors were born.

 

[IanSuth]

"Although it’s certainly true that crossing the Channel without authorisation isn’t a legal way to enter the UK, Article 31 of the UN Refugee Convention states that refugees cannot be penalised for entering the country illegally to claim asylum if they are “coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened” provided they “present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence”.

A lot depends here on how to interpret which country people are “coming directly from”. It could be argued, for instance, that as the people crossing the channel are coming directly from France—which is not the country they initially fled—they don’t have the right to claim asylum in the UK.

However, in 1999 a UK judge ruled that “some element of choice is indeed open to refugees as to where they may properly claim asylum.” The judge specified that “any merely short term stopover en route” to another country should not forfeit the individual’s right to claim refugee status elsewhere."

Can refugees enter the UK illegally? – Full Fact

Refugees can’t be penalised for entering illegally if they are claiming asylum and coming from a place where their life or freedom are threatened.

fullfact.org

So yes, it is illegal to jump in a boat and sail across the Channel with authorisation.

So it is illegal under UK law, but they are not yet in the UK, and once they are in the uk and subject to UK law they can then claim asylum. You can't expect the French to endanger life & limb and spend a fortune to stop people leaving their country by intercepting them and trying to charge them under a British law even though we are no longer in ANY form of treaty agreement with them that would cover it. I would think the French version of the CPS would laugh the Gendarme trying it out the court

And can you imagine the protestation of the super small govt pro freedom of choice right wingers if it was suggested that anybody jumping in a dingy on a UK beach needed to register their launch and gain a permit to do so (and legally what is the difference in that to what those leaving France are doing)

 

[NickGrogan]

So it is illegal under UK law, but they are not yet in the UK, and once they are in the uk and subject to UK law they can then claim asylum. You can't expect the French to endanger life & limb and spend a fortune to stop people leaving their country by intercepting them and trying to charge them under a British law even though we are no longer in ANY form of treaty agreement with them that would cover it. I would think the French version of the CPS would laugh the Gendarme trying it out the court

And can you imagine the protestation of the super small govt pro freedom of choice right wingers if it was suggested that anybody jumping in a dingy on a UK beach needed to register their launch and gain a permit to do so (and legally what is the difference in that to what those leaving France are doing)

Jumping in a Dingy no permit needed.

Sailing your Dingy to France or UK, crossing international borders. Permit needed.

As I said earlier neither the French or UK government has any real interest in stopping the immigrants, it is all just political posturing.

 

[NickGrogan]

I’ve not seen their bank accounts so I have no idea.
Is there a point to the question?

I know that Jeremy is considerably older than Johnson, and doesn’t have the expenses of a philanderer.

Is that what you mean?

OK if that's what you want to believe. Your faith is clearly strong.

So who are these Elites that you refer to?

 

[Newchodge]

"Although it’s certainly true that crossing the Channel without authorisation isn’t a legal way to enter the UK, Article 31 of the UN Refugee Convention states that refugees cannot be penalised for entering the country illegally to claim asylum if they are “coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened” provided they “present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence”.

A lot depends here on how to interpret which country people are “coming directly from”. It could be argued, for instance, that as the people crossing the channel are coming directly from France—which is not the country they initially fled—they don’t have the right to claim asylum in the UK.

However, in 1999 a UK judge ruled that “some element of choice is indeed open to refugees as to where they may properly claim asylum.” The judge specified that “any merely short term stopover en route” to another country should not forfeit the individual’s right to claim refugee status elsewhere."

Can refugees enter the UK illegally? – Full Fact

Refugees can’t be penalised for entering illegally if they are claiming asylum and coming from a place where their life or freedom are threatened.

fullfact.org

So yes, it is illegal to jump in a boat and sail across the Channel with authorisation.

Authorisation from whom, to do what? It is not a legal way to enter the UK, but is it a crime in France to board a boat and head across the Channel?

 

[Newchodge]

Jumping in a Dingy no permit needed.

Sailing your Dingy to France or UK, crossing international borders. Permit needed.

As I said earlier neither the French or UK government has any real interest in stopping the immigrants, it is all just political posturing.

The international border between France and the UK is in the middle of the Channel. Until that border is crossed there is no illegality. There is certainly no illegality in France, So, forget the lack of interest in stopping the migrants. There is a fundamental lack of legal ability to stop them leaving France.

 

[InsuranceBroker]

Why would anyone trust the government when they have their own interests to gain from mass misinformation, scaremongering etc under the guise of 'safety'. We have seen many of the politician/corporate contracts and investments in place for masks, AI medicine, PPE, testing, vaccines etc . all over the world as just one example of how the government profits from manufactured chaos.

I have a science degree. When I submitted my research, it was required that I must disclose my bias when coming to a conclusion and, if I did not recognise my bias, it would be pointed out to me by peers etc. Additionally, scientists must acknowledge conflicting views and reconfirm their own position in the face of these conflicting views so that readers understand there is only ONE view being presented and can then come to their own conclusion via further research or experiments etc. Medical policy decisions e.g. NICE guidelines/treatments etc. are then made on the majority of findings BUT reversible in light of new information. BEFORE the medical industry was compromised by extreme HUBRIS.

However, politicians have no such onus to ethics or information so they can lie, coerce, manipulate etc with no recourse! There is also zero accountability or responsibility for the chaos politicians cause amongst the public they so want to save. They have no responsibility to declare their bias or present alternative information for the sake of balance. Additionally, politicians are counseled by staff like behavioural psychologists, marketing and sales, etc to make you THINK what they want you to THINK to change how you react to situations and other people.

I quit my post as a researcher when I was told that research into Alzheimer's was noble but addiction made money. If you think healthcare or politics is about anything BUT making money, then you are sadly naïve.

I mean, it's not rocket science for anyone to understand why people do not trust the government and SHOULD NOT trust the government, regardless of the country or the context, to put public interests as priority re: health or otherwise. I can't believe the question is even considered at this late stage of the game by seemingly intelligent people but I hope some learning and perspective comes about as a result.

 

[InsuranceBroker]

Why would anyone trust the government when they have their own interests to gain from mass misinformation, scaremongering etc under the guise of 'safety'. We have seen many of the politician/corporate contracts and investments in place for masks, AI medicine, PPE, testing, vaccines etc . all over the world as just one example of how the government profits from manufactured chaos.

I have a science degree. When I submitted my research, it was required that I must disclose my bias when coming to a conclusion and, if I did not recognise my bias, it would be pointed out to me by peers etc. Additionally, scientists must acknowledge conflicting views and reconfirm their own position in the face of these conflicting views so that readers understand there is only ONE view being presented and can then come to their own conclusion via further research or experiments etc. Medical policy decisions e.g. NICE guidelines/treatments etc. are then made on the majority of findings BUT reversible in light of new information. BEFORE the medical industry was compromised by extreme HUBRIS.

However, politicians have no such onus to ethics or information so they can lie, coerce, manipulate etc with no recourse! There is also zero accountability or responsibility for the chaos politicians cause amongst the public they so want to save. They have no responsibility to declare their bias or present alternative information for the sake of balance. Additionally, politicians are counseled by staff like behavioural psychologists, marketing and sales, etc to make you THINK what they want you to THINK to change how you react to situations and other people.

I quit my post as a researcher when I was told that research into Alzheimer's was noble but addiction made money. If you think healthcare or politics is about anything BUT making money, then you are sadly naïve.

I mean, it's not rocket science for anyone to understand why people do not trust the government and SHOULD NOT trust the government, regardless of the country or the context, to put public interests as priority re: health or otherwise. I can't believe the question is even considered at this late stage of the game by seemingly intelligent people but I hope some learning and perspective comes about as a result.

Also, 'you' refers to the collective 'you' and no one in particular. To summarise my point, there is no 'rock and a hard place'. Governments are interested in profit for their own interests, always above the interests of the people, and I don't care what government structure or economic structure is in place or in what era. Corruption is on display for all to see but fear is a powerful blinder for some.

 

[simon field]

OK if that's what you want to believe. Your faith is clearly strong.

So who are these Elites that you refer to?

Hey, no - it’s not a faith thing, it was just a personal preference to do with the available options.

I’d say the self-appointed ‘elites’ are those who preach one thing to the public, but then do something different themselves (hypocrites), along with those who seek positions of power so that they can look after their friends with colossal wastes of taxpayers money. The corruption/sleaze people. Surely you must be aware of them?
I can’t actually be bothered to look up names, dates, etc but I have a feeling there’s corruption going on.
Maybe I’m mad.

 

[simon field]

Back onto the topic of governments.
Our current one seems to have a little problem with honesty. A party ? in lockdown? Surely not!
Can any fans of the government on here explain how anybody is supposed to take their rules seriously when they clearly don’t want to follow them?

 

[Newchodge]

And my early posts were removed for going off topic!! Fisix you don’t like me do you.

Don't worry. He doesn't like anyone ?

 

[MBE2017]

Back onto the topic of governments.
Our current one seems to have a little problem with honesty. A party ? in lockdown? Surely not!
Can any fans of the government on here explain how anybody is supposed to take their rules seriously when they clearly don’t want to follow them?

Not a fan of any politician myself, suprised Boris did not mention how Labours previous leader Corbyn had done the same.

Jeremy Corbyn apologises for breaching Covid rules at dinner party for nine

FORMER Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has apologised for his “mistake” after being photographed at a dinner party for nine people.

www.thenational.scot

 

[simon field]

Not a fan of any politician myself, suprised Boris did not mention how Labours previous leader Corbyn had done the same.

Jeremy Corbyn apologises for breaching Covid rules at dinner party for nine

FORMER Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has apologised for his “mistake” after being photographed at a dinner party for nine people.

www.thenational.scot

Nice. At least the bloke had the decency to admit and apologise eh.

 

[NickGrogan]

Authorisation from whom, to do what? It is not a legal way to enter the UK, but is it a crime in France to board a boat and head across the Channel?

Yes.

 

[NickGrogan]

The international border between France and the UK is in the middle of the Channel. Until that border is crossed there is no illegality. There is certainly no illegality in France, So, forget the lack of interest in stopping the migrants. There is a fundamental lack of legal ability to stop them leaving France.

The French can make any laws they like, they frequently do.

They have no desire to make a law in this case, but there is nothing stopping them from doing it.

 

[NickGrogan]

Hey, no - it’s not a faith thing, it was just a personal preference to do with the available options.

I’d say the self-appointed ‘elites’ are those who preach one thing to the public, but then do something different themselves (hypocrites), along with those who seek positions of power so that they can look after their friends with colossal wastes of taxpayers money. The corruption/sleaze people. Surely you must be aware of them?
I can’t actually be bothered to look up names, dates, etc but I have a feeling there’s corruption going on.
Maybe I’m mad.

So multi millionaires who pretend to be working class for example?

Or people paid massive salaries to run unions whilst living in council houses, thereby depriving those in need?

Or people that have dinner parties during lockdown?

Yes, I'm familiar with them.

 

[NickGrogan]

Why would anyone trust the government when they have their own interests to gain from mass misinformation, scaremongering etc under the guise of 'safety'. We have seen many of the politician/corporate contracts and investments in place for masks, AI medicine, PPE, testing, vaccines etc . all over the world as just one example of how the government profits from manufactured chaos.

I have a science degree. When I submitted my research, it was required that I must disclose my bias when coming to a conclusion and, if I did not recognise my bias, it would be pointed out to me by peers etc. Additionally, scientists must acknowledge conflicting views and reconfirm their own position in the face of these conflicting views so that readers understand there is only ONE view being presented and can then come to their own conclusion via further research or experiments etc. Medical policy decisions e.g. NICE guidelines/treatments etc. are then made on the majority of findings BUT reversible in light of new information. BEFORE the medical industry was compromised by extreme HUBRIS.

However, politicians have no such onus to ethics or information so they can lie, coerce, manipulate etc with no recourse! There is also zero accountability or responsibility for the chaos politicians cause amongst the public they so want to save. They have no responsibility to declare their bias or present alternative information for the sake of balance. Additionally, politicians are counseled by staff like behavioural psychologists, marketing and sales, etc to make you THINK what they want you to THINK to change how you react to situations and other people.

I quit my post as a researcher when I was told that research into Alzheimer's was noble but addiction made money. If you think healthcare or politics is about anything BUT making money, then you are sadly naïve.

I mean, it's not rocket science for anyone to understand why people do not trust the government and SHOULD NOT trust the government, regardless of the country or the context, to put public interests as priority re: health or otherwise. I can't believe the question is even considered at this late stage of the game by seemingly intelligent people but I hope some learning and perspective comes about as a result.

Governments here are fully accountable, we have regular free elections. We've had quite a few recently.

As for bias, all politicians ever talk about is their bias, it's the only thing that matters to them.

Is insurance about anything other than making money?

 

[Newchodge]

The French can make any laws they like, they frequently do.

They have no desire to make a law in this case, but there is nothing stopping them from doing it.

You just said it already is a crime in France. Make your mind up.

 

[InsuranceBroker]

Governments here are fully accountable, we have regular free elections. We've had quite a few recently.

As for bias, all politicians ever talk about is their bias, it's the only thing that matters to them.

Is insurance about anything other than making money?

Governments are fully accountable? - agree to disagree
Bias is all that's ever talked about? Really? - agree to disagree
Insurance about making money - yes - and regulated by the government - connect the dots

 

[NickGrogan]

You just said it already is a crime in France. Make your mind up.

No contraditions

Sailing Licences and Boat Permits - France - Angloinfo

Permits are not required for sailing boats, or boats with a motor less powerful than 4.5 Kilowatts (6CV) sailing sea or inland waters. Note: "Jet-Ski...

www.angloinfo.com

It is a crime to sail more than 6 miles from the coast without a licence, even if you have the right boat.

You said

There is a fundamental lack of legal ability to stop them leaving France.

The French government could make a law stopping people from leaving France by any route or method, not just boats. Or do you think the French Government cannot make its own laws?

If they can't, perhaps you can explain this?

Temporary Reintroduction of Border Control

Learn which Schengen countries are currently reintroducing temporary border control in accordance with the Schengen Borders Code.

ec.europa.eu

Current Temporarily Reintroduced Border Controls

Temporarily reintroduced in the context of COVID-19:
France (1 November 2021 - 30 April 2022)
Coronavirus COVID-19; all internal borders

 

[NickGrogan]

Governments are fully accountable? - agree to disagree
Bias is all that's ever talked about? Really? - agree to disagree
Insurance about making money - yes - and regulated by the government - connect the dots

1) Have you experienced an election in the UK, they happen a lot. Or are they not free elections?
2) Every single Labour announcement on any subject is dipped in a big bath of bias.
3) So by work in Insurance then?

 

[InsuranceBroker]

1) Have you experienced an election in the UK, they happen a lot. Or are they not free elections?
2) Every single Labour announcement on any subject is dipped in a big bath of bias.
3) So by work in Insurance then?

1) And? - electing a party doesn't hold officials accountable for actions i.e. criminal etc.
2) And? I would disagree that anyone in any party admits bias or all would openly admit their investments and the reasons behind the support of these before being 'outed' by the media etc.
3) Because insurance is transparent about being in the business of profit. Nothing wrong with making profit. Misleading people by pretending to care about their wellbeing and lying about why the public/individuals are being mislead is a whole different story.

 

[NickGrogan]

1) MPs get arrested regularly. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/jared-o-mara-fraud-sheffield-mp-b1926834.html for example
2) Jacob Rees Mogg investments are well known and frequently discussed.
3) Insurance companies down pretend to care about our wellbeing? They don't mislead people?

If you buy Tesco car insurance and pay extra for glass insurance, how many car windows are insured? Dont look it up.

1, 2, or all of them?

 

[Newchodge]

The French government could make a law stopping people from leaving France by any route or method, not just boats. Or do you think the French Government cannot make its own laws?

I said there is a lack of legal ability to stop people leaving France. The fact that there could be some kind of law introduced does not make my statement incorrect. The infringement of the civil liberties of the French by introducing such a law would cause a colossal problem. Unless you think it would be possible to phrase a law so that it only applies to 'foreigners'.

 

[InsuranceBroker]

1) MPs get arrested regularly. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/jared-o-mara-fraud-sheffield-mp-b1926834.html for example
2) Jacob Rees Mogg investments are well known and frequently discussed.
3) Insurance companies down pretend to care about our wellbeing? They don't mislead people?

If you buy Tesco car insurance and pay extra for glass insurance, how many car windows are insured? Dont look it up.

1, 2, or all of them?

1) regularly isn't enough so, as I said, agree to disagree
2) one out of how many MPs are 'well known and frequently discussed' and how was it they came to be 'well known and frequently discussed'?
3) Insurance posits protection and is upfront about the monetary price but not always the T & C's which is where people like myself come in - I did not say insurance was ethical or not for profit and I did not suggest that I moved to insurance for these reasons from research so I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to make by connecting insurance with government and medical apart from to discredit my view - nice try, I guess?

 

[Employment Law Clinic]

The French government could make a law stopping people from leaving France by any route or method, not just boats. Or do you think the French Government cannot make its own laws?

If they can't, perhaps you can explain this?

Rather than consider what the French could do, why not consider what incentive they have to do anything (beyond obviously avoiding further tragedies)?



According to a leaked letter from our PM to President Macron, our Prime Minister proposed “bilateral readmissions” – as in, if they leave Dover for Calais, they can be returned to the UK, and vice versa. This would be akin to the Dublin Agreement, something we disposed of recently, as part of our sovereignty, but the balance of what this would be serve to both parties is open to debate.




No doubt the French have every wish to avoid the loss of life, but with many making the crossing safely (albeit with assistance), what incentive has France got to actually introduce laws to discourage people leaving France? There are camps in Calais that the French would no doubt be delighted to see the back of.

And why would they put an extra burden on their taxpayers, rather than ours?



Your argument also ignores the fact that France sees the UK as been run by a clown.


Karl Limpert

 

[NickGrogan]

I said there is a lack of legal ability to stop people leaving France. The fact that there could be some kind of law introduced does not make my statement incorrect. The infringement of the civil liberties of the French by introducing such a law would cause a colossal problem. Unless you think it would be possible to phrase a law so that it only applies to 'foreigners'.

There any many French laws that apply only to foreigners.

https://www.defenseurdesdroits.fr/sites/default/files/atoms/files/dp-droits_des_etrangers_-_03052016-en.pdf

 

[NickGrogan]

Rather than consider what the French could do, why not consider what incentive they have to do anything (beyond obviously avoiding further tragedies)?



According to a leaked letter from our PM to President Macron, our Prime Minister proposed “bilateral readmissions” – as in, if they leave Dover for Calais, they can be returned to the UK, and vice versa. This would be akin to the Dublin Agreement, something we disposed of recently, as part of our sovereignty, but the balance of what this would be serve to both parties is open to debate.




No doubt the French have every wish to avoid the loss of life, but with many making the crossing safely (albeit with assistance), what incentive has France got to actually introduce laws to discourage people leaving France? There are camps in Calais that the French would no doubt be delighted to see the back of.

And why would they put an extra burden on their taxpayers, rather than ours?



Your argument also ignores the fact that France sees the UK as been run by a clown.


Karl Limpert

Karl

We basically agree. France could do something if it wanted to, but it has no desire to do anything because they want the migrants to leave.

Plus if they don't leave by boat, they'll find another way. It would be a riskier way, resulting in more deaths.

The French have an election soon, so every statement should be viewed through that lens.

Plus he is a clown.

 

[Deleted member 59730]

Your argument also ignores the fact that France sees the UK as been run by a clown.

You are right there. I was having an apero with a group of French people. The jokes and banter were too quick and fast for me to follow. Then a farmer in the group held up his hand for silence. With a strong French accent he said "Boris Johnson". Everyone fell about laughing.

 

[MBE2017]

Nice. At least the bloke had the decency to admit and apologise eh.

I agree, it was decent of him to do it, shame he only apologised after being found out. Of course apologising before being found out, or preferably adhering to the restrictions at the time, would have been the truly decent thing to do.

I’m not picking sides or even on Corbyn, I’m sure there are hundreds of such cases that have not come to light from many Public figures and Politicians from all parties.

 

[simon field]

I agree, it was decent of him to do it, shame he only apologised after being found out. Of course apologising before being found out, or preferably adhering to the restrictions at the time, would have been the truly decent thing to do.

I’m not picking sides or even on Corbyn, I’m sure there are hundreds of such cases that have not come to light from many Public figures and Politicians from all parties.

I agree they’re all as bad as each other. At the moment though, the buck stops with Johnson.

He’s literally laughing in people’s faces with this latest disregard of poorer, less powerful people. Admitting there was a party, and in the next breath denying any wrongdoing. It’s the kind of thing a naughty child does. Even when caught lying, the lies continue ad infinitum. Just kinda trips off his deceitful tongue…

 

[NickGrogan]

I agree they’re all as bad as each other. At the moment though, the buck stops with Johnson.

He’s literally laughing in people’s faces with this latest disregard of poorer, less powerful people. Admitting there was a party, and in the next breath denying any wrongdoing. It’s the kind of thing a naughty child does. Even when caught lying, the lies continue ad infinitum. Just kinda trips off his deceitful tongue…

Jeremy Corbyn: I was present at wreath-laying but don't think I was involved

Labour leader rows with Israeli PM over ceremony for individuals from group behind Munich massacre

www.theguardian.com

 

[simon field]

Jeremy Corbyn: I was present at wreath-laying but don't think I was involved

Labour leader rows with Israeli PM over ceremony for individuals from group behind Munich massacre

www.theguardian.com

Nice try, but:

1) the article is 3 years old

2) he’s not pretending to be in charge of the country

3) I can go and watch a film about terrorism. It doesn’t mean I’m involved.

 

[NickGrogan]

Like I said your faith is strong, you're a true believer.

1) Is there a statute of limitations on lying ? Is 3 years a really long time ago?
2) He was actively trying to be. It's only due to luck and his bad judgement that he's not.
3) Yes, that's right. Flying to Israel to lay a wreath at a ceremony dedicated to terrorists who murdered athletes is totally not getting involved.

 

[simon field]

Like I said your faith is strong, you're a true believer.

1) Is there a statute of limitations on lying ? Is 3 years a really long time ago?
2) He was actively trying to be. It's only due to luck and his bad judgement that he's not.
3) Yes, that's right. Flying to Israel to lay a wreath at a ceremony dedicated to terrorists who murdered athletes is totally not getting involved.

You’re right. He’s rubbish at not getting caught lying, but it just seems somehow less bad when he isn’t the one pontificating, currently.

They’re all rubbish! I’m glad I don’t vote. Will the evil tories ever be defeated?

I’ve lost faith. Have a nice weekend.

 

[MBE2017]

I’m glad I don’t vote. Will the evil tories ever be defeated?

I’ve lost faith. Have a nice weekend.

Had the same thought from my wife tonite fed up with this Gov, pointed out since we didn’t vote we can hardly moan, have zero faith in any of them. All the same, just slightly different shades of the same colour.

 

[LandlordsFirst]

Thing is, we are supposed to be losing faith in our government. The plan has always been to get used to the idea of the big corps calling the shots (which they have done for years but it's only now ppl are noticing).

The masks do not work, in fact they are dangerous for peoples health: Inhaling the toxins you've just exhaled (complete opposite of one of the main functions of the respiratory system), the dust and dirt particles now on your masks from being in your pocket, and of course, the chemicals used to make them.

Nevertheless, people want to feel they are doing their part towards protecting others and civilisations freedom, so wear a mask as an act of selflessness and compassion because they are mandated through corrupt politicians.

Truth is, it's easier for people to front and say they are doing it to help by complying and wearing a mask rather than actually helping their fellow human. I mean, is that what makes people feel they are helping humanity? Wearing a mask so they don't get in trouble and embarrassed publically?

How about researching these drug companies, marketing companies and politicians, and ask how they can continually commit crimes (not wrongdoings) and never do any prison time? That is selflessness and helping others - giving up your time - but instead, the majority say to themselves, "got my jab, wearing a mask, done my bit, now put on Im a Celeb".

Anyways, just a bit sick of this "help others" nonsense when quite honestly, it's a load of rubbish. People are doing it from of a guilt trip, not real compassion; meaning they don't want to be responsible for something.
Maybe consider how and by who and in what conditions your masks were made and have that changed if you really care about other people.

 

[NickGrogan]

You’re right. He’s rubbish at not getting caught lying, but it just seems somehow less bad when he isn’t the one pontificating, currently.

They’re all rubbish! I’m glad I don’t vote. Will the evil tories ever be defeated?

I’ve lost faith. Have a nice weekend.

Not by Labour in its current form. They'd have to try really hard to lose - which they might do.

Like many things, you get what you pay for.

We have too many MPs that are paid too little.

Increase the salaries, stop the dodgy expenses and staff allowance, and you'd get some decent people wanting to be MPs.

Unfortunately, I can't see that happening any time soon.

The masks do not work, in fact they are dangerous for peoples health: Inhaling the toxins you've just exhaled (complete opposite of one of the main functions of the respiratory system), the dust and dirt particles now on your masks from being in your pocket, and of course, the chemicals used to make them.

So where are the people that have been made sick by the masks?

You might want to look up how the respiratory system works and more specifically what your nose is for.

 

[LandlordsFirst]

So where are the people that have been made sick by the masks?

You might want to look up how the respiratory system works and more specifically what your nose is for.

If you think masks enhance or aid the respiratory system, and don’t hugely affect your internal primary organs, coincidentally putting your lungs and heart on intense overtime, then you need to go and speak with a doctor and ask them.
Sorry, but this is really simple. COVID or not, blocking your respiratory system for any amount of time puts a huge amount of pressure on your body.

As for their efficiency, im not sure how many more papers can be published demonstrating they don’t work in blocking or containing SARS COVID viruses. Bear in mind, we can have hundreds of coronaviruses in our bodies already, so it’s not like anything new getting in.

Politicians justifying lockdowns with new variants and LFT tests in which you input the result yourself online with no proof (please look this up as it is quite incredible), PCR tests with testing cycles maxxed up making them useless, and next to no deaths once prior conditions and 30 day windows are accounted into it.

Last paragraph sounds like conspiracy but I’d really appreciate if anyone could prove any of it is..for my own peace of mind