onewheeldave

It's not a black and white thing for everyone. Some don't generally get vaccinated but will if forced (eg travel to some places requires compulsory vaccinations). Others will have some vaccinations, but not others (a lot of people who have vaccinations will refuse the flu vaccine). Another good example of the above, is during the autism vaccine scare, many parents would have happily had their children given the measles jab, but opposed the 'triple jab'. In that situation, had the NHS offered the single jab, uptake would have been higher. A lot of people with issues concerning the systems associated with vaccines (eg the pharmaceutical industry) are actually on board with the science behind vaccines, but consider the administration of vaccines to be highly problematic. Then you can add in the people who respect the science behind vaccines, but, oppose organisations being controlling (see above).

Like you said before, you've been hit by wing mirrors 4 times. If you ride in a position where cars can't attempt to overtake, then you won't get hit anymore. I don't ride in the middle of the lane all the time, but, any situation where I judge it dangerous for a car to overtake me (e.g. approaching a central reservation) then I take the center position. There are a portion of drivers on the roads who are inept, and will try to squeeze past cyclists, putting the cyclists life in danger. Adopting a central position eliminates that threat. What other option do they have? Deliberately running into the back of you? You're taking the risk now. You've been hit 4 times! I take central position (when necessary) and have been hit zero times.

There's a lot more factors involved though. For example, you clearly have a degree of trust in the medical systems assessment of things like vaccines. I don't have that degree of trust. Then there is the wider issue/'bigger picture' concerning the establishments progression towards compulsory vaccinations, which I very strongly oppose, and, which you, I believe, also oppose. If there's one thing I've learnt in this life, it's that things get to where the system wants them to get, when most people comply and don't resist, the various stages and progressions the system puts in place along the way. ---------- Post added 27-11-2017 at 21:24 ---------- Bear in mind also, that where the 'herd' is concerned, quite large numbers of it's members are themselves refusing the flu vaccine. The 'herd' does not stand s one on this issue. By me refusing to have the flu vaccine, I'm also standing with them, and, like many of them, helping to put off the day when the authorities move towards forcing compulsory vaccinations on everyone.

That's good. Some pro-vaccine people are in favour of compulsory vaccination. One thing puzzles me though- you say you will put aside your individual choice in favour of the herd, yet, you seem to be very positive about vaccination. If that's the case, then you'd not actually be putting aside your individual choice, would you?

As I said earlier- And, lo and behold- i.e. 'overcoming individual choice' (to not receive a flu vaccine) on the grounds that it is not contributing to 'herd immunity'. ---------- Post added 27-11-2017 at 11:17 ---------- I uphold personal choice in this matter. If people want to get vaccinated, that's their choice. I oppose compulsory vaccinations for adults.

The point is, it contains reasons, therefore it's not a 'slippery slope' fallacy.

Here's what I said, with reasons in bold

Yes, I did give predictions. In addition, I gave reasons. ---------- Post added 26-11-2017 at 22:53 ---------- No-one's claimed that all Health care workers are forced or pressured to get the flu vaccine, but, that some are. Some HC workers being pressured is entirely compatible with you not being pressured.

The pro-enforced vaccine lobbies are pretty much the same though. Once a tactic has been found to be successful in one country, the lobbyists will use it elsewhere. Yes. Hence my prediction/s in the previous post. ---------- Post added 26-11-2017 at 21:37 ---------- from- http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Slippery%20slope I provided causal reasons, hence it was not a fallacy.

It shows that some Health authorities in the US are now sacking employees for refusing to have the flu jab. It sets a precedent. It means that Health authorities over here who share the same view that it's fine to force employees to have a flu jab (by sacking those who don't), will be more likely to push for it. ---------- Post added 26-11-2017 at 18:13 ---------- From the BMJ (British Medical Journal) http://www.bmj.com/content/358/bmj.j4146 'last years Flu jab ineffective for over 65 year olds' ---------- Post added 26-11-2017 at 18:19 ---------- Also from the BMJ http://www.bmj.com/content/359/bmj.j4766 "NHS staff who refuse flu vaccine this winter will have to give reasons" Increasing the pressure for staff to comply. This will very likely be a slippery slope to the requirement for all NHS to have the jab, then, using the same reasoning, there will be pressure for everyone to have it, with those resisting being accused of being selfish by not contributing to 'herd immunity'. As this progresses, those who refuse will be, if employed, sacked, and those are are unemployed, will lose benefits. That is where things are headed.

No, it's not. A pop group doing their job, who actively encourage such fan behaviour (as their career and financial success depend on it) is in no way similar to a lone female simply walking from one place to another, and, being accosted by the unrequested noises of random lecherous males. I presented that from the perspective of one of the females who, unlike yourself, do find wolf whistling and shouted sexual comments to be annoying, offensive or threatening. (Perhaps because, like many females in our culture, they have been oppressed, sexually abused or even raped, by lecherous men, and, having other lecherous men shout and whistle at them when they are simply walking from one place to another in public, reminds them of those previous damaging acts). ---------- Post added 25-11-2017 at 11:38 ---------- Yes you are (defending wolf whistling). And, for everyone else here defending it, let's make it abundantly clear that no-one's saying men shouldn't approach women, or that 'chatting them up' should be banned. Some women like 'being chatted up'. But wolf whistling is not that. 'Chatting up' to be appropriate, requires first establishing that the woman is open to that kind of approach i.e. such form of pre-communication is necessary. Unsolicited whistling and/or shouting down the road comments about a woman's breasts/bum does not constitute 'chatting up'.

I'm surprised it's only just been banned One thing to bear in mind, is that having noises/comments/actions directed at you in public when you're simply minding your own business walking from A to B- if they're one-offs, it may not cause too much annoyance. When you're getting them multiple times a day, if can really have a bad effect on your mental health.

No. Here's what I said- Didn't mention the Tory's, or anyone else, just that the figures were fixed.

The article clearly states that the definition of 'unemployment' used by economists and politicians is different to the definition used by non-economists/politicians i.e. as 'the number of people who want/need to work, who can't get work.' Redefining 'unemployment' to mean something else than "the number of people who want/need to work, who can't get work" may well give much lower figures, but does not alter the fact that way more than 4.5% of the population are in a desperate position financially, due to being unable to find work.

The figures have, but they're fixed and bear no relation to the actual numbers of unemployed. Plus, as Anna says- Then add in the vast numbers who simply can't/won't engage with the humiliating 'signing on' process, who also aren't included in the unemployment figures even though they have no job. ---------- Post added 20-11-2017 at 10:52 ---------- Thanks for the link. I've shared it on Facebook and suggest others do the same. Current total number of deaths attributed to 'welfare reform' is now approaching 90,000. That's holocaust level, happening now, in Britain 2016. Mass death, by political bureaucracy.

Hills aren't a problem as long as the bike has low gears. Personally, I prefer a 'problem' that's consistent over one that occurs frequently but at random, as it tends to be easier to run a solution. In this case, ensuring my bike has low enough gears that Sheffield hills are not a problem. It's only anaerobic if the cyclist has to stand up on the pedals/apply great force, as this is using the big thigh muscles, which is anaerobic, thus leading to a buildup of lactic acid in the muscles. That is not sustainable and, at some point, the muscles will fail. If the cyclist is in a very low gear, they remain on the seat and 'spin' up, this is primarily aerobic, using much less effort from the leg muscles, and, is sustainable. I used to know one of the people who drove the big cargo tricycles around Sheffield- those weighed far more than any bike, plus carried large loads. He also said Sheffield hills were not a problem, due to the extreme low gearing on the trikes.

You're right. The knee jerk reaction to anyone who complains about the political system is 'stand for election so you can change things', which, if your figure is right, 20% of the population are barred from doing. If you could provide a link to substantiate that, it would disable most of the objections people on this thread are raising, as, it shows that a system which doesn't bar people from standing, can work.

I agree. Sheffield hills are not a problem for me, as I know that I just need a bike with low gears. The roads full of insane amounts of motor traffic are a major put-off. Quite simply, however careful you are, there's a constant low-level risk of being hit from behind by some idiot motorist on their mobile phone. That said, I cycle a lot. I just stick to local routes where going on major roads is minimal. For example, I'm just off to Attercliffe where I'll avoid the horrible long big road by getting onto the five-weirs walk. And, of course, the same reasoning is why many cyclists use the pavement at the side of big main roads. As long as they don't bomb along like maniacs and put pedestrians at risk, I have no issue with them doing so.

It is not illegal to record conversations without permission- what is illegal is 'publishing' them without the other persons consent. As for courts and tribunals, it varies, some have thrown them out, others have accepted them. This is, unfortunately, true. The fact that these organisations bar recording their assessments says it all- they are basically blocking the objective recording of what actually is said/done in them, so that their distorted records actually override the truth. Stunning how our society accepts such obvious abuse of the most vulnerable

Once again, pressured, not forced. As the document explains, the only staff who need the immunizations are those doing exposure prone procedures (E.P.P) Paid staff not doing EPPs do not require the immunizations, yet will feel pressured to have them due to the current demonization of those who can in any way be considered to have anti-vaccination (or, anything other than absolutely pro-vaccination) views. That aside, we all know that a portion of managers will not look kindly on anyone whose views they disagree with. As for volunteers, those not doing EPPs will simply be dismissed, even though their role does not require the vaccination they are refusing.

I said forced/pressured, and, from the quotes I've posted, it's clear that paid staff are under pressure to accept immunizations. The question of whether they are forced, is still open. I think it's wrong to force volunteers to leave if they turn down immunizations (that are not necessary for their role). Given the financial state of the NHS (close to breakdown), I'm surprised they feel it's acceptable to lose volunteers over it.

Read page 21. Any comment on the fact that volunteers have to accept immunizations to remain in their posts?

Check the recent quotes in previous posts. The NHS definitely is forcing certain volunteers to either have them, or lose their posts. And, to put it mildly, applies pressure on paid workers to have immunizations.

Personally, I have no problem with vaccines/immunisations, as long as they're not forced on people.

My current Alcatel Pop 4, like many phones, has apps that can't be deleted (only disabled), that I don't use, and, that take up valuable memory space (only 8Gb). I've got a expansion card, but apps can't go on that. I've tried rooting the phone, but that hasn't worked. So I want a new phone. I've been told that on Samsung phones, users can delete all (non system essential apps). Internet research is not confirming that. Can anyone let me know whether it is the case that on all Samsungs users can delete all (non system essential apps), or, whether that is not the case? Alternatively, any other phone brands in that range with the same feature? (I'm not interested in advice on rooting, or trying to shift apps to memory card etc). Thanks in advance.