onewheeldave

You don't think this is putting pressure on people? In conjunction with- And, for voluntary workers, no choice-

Of which page?

No-ones mentioned Nazi Germany except you. According to: Appendix 1: Immunisation Required per NHS Employee Category from- http://www.southernhealth.nhs.uk/_resources/assets/inline/full/0/73504.pdf(page 14) NHS employees (of southernhealth) who are required to have Hep B (plus several other vaccinations), include- Category 1 Staff involved in direct patient care eg doctors, nurses, healthcare support workers, occupational therapists, physiotherapists, psychology staff, radiographers, chiropodists, pharmacists, dieticians, plaster technicians, audiology staff. Students and trainees of these disciplines with patients

The article says- Which sounds like ('front-line') workers can be employed without accepting the vaccine, but will not get any work. Which, if true, means they are effectively forced to comply. ---------- Post added 10-11-2017 at 09:42 ---------- It may be that those staff weren't classed as 'frontline workers'. They may work in a dept that doesn't enforce. Whatever the reason, the fact that you know some staff who successfully refused, doesn't mean that other staff aren't forced (or even pressured) to comply.

From http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/150804/Fury-at-vaccine-scandal

Scandalous that people are forced to accept that vaccination as part of their job

This is a great idea (if it's done properly). What many of the public seem unable to realise, is that many (most?) of homeless people have such great difficulties accessing services, that they are effectively blocked from them. As an autistic person, I can strongly empathise with that. One thing that can help is to offer more, and, a variety of options. Options that involve as little bureaucracy (AKA, from the perspective of the blocked 'hoop jumping') as possible.

US https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2016/05/03/researchers-medical-errors-now-third-leading-cause-of-death-in-united-states/?utm_term=.b7b44d27ff39 Not isolated examples.

Where are links to these figures- the one's that aren't council figures?

Bear in mind that you'll need to not let them know you're recording, as they will stop the assessment.

It's a council link. No reason whatsoever to think that that count is accurate.

Bear in mind the council are also hiring private detectives to film and follow protesters, as well as attempting to jail several of them- all using taxpayers money. Here's a link to a petition asking Jeremy Corbyn to mediate in this - https://www.change.org/p/jeremy-corbyn-mp-jeremy-corbyn-please-mediate-the-sheffield-trees-crisis?fref=gc&dti=969911106414893

From what little I know, I approve. Americas supposed to be a land of 'free speech'. In reality, it only approves of certain types of 'free speech'. It's supposed to be a land of equality. It's not. Free speech concerning the ongoing lack of social opportunities for low income black people is strictly limited to the areas that the establishment approves of. Unfortunately, debate of only those areas/topics doesn't, and won't, lead to solutions of the actual problems. Taking the knee very much raises awareness of those issues. It's also non-violent.

JSA sanctions (removal of benefits for 3 months or longer) have been in place since well before 2003. During Labours time in power they sanctions continued. If Labour is so caring then why did they not do the decent thing and end the barbaric practice of sanctioning? I'm not going to get into a labour vs tory debate here, as it is exactly that debate that keeps people seeing the real issue, which is the bureaucracy.

You criticized my post on the grounds it was a generalization- my first few paragraphs were explaining that generalizations aren't always invalid. I know, but you implied it was flawed because it was divisive, which is incorrect- many valid points are divisive. If you let me know the post number, then I can have a look at it. The post number is at the far right of the blue bar at the top of all posts. For exmple, the number of this post is #226

It's a pity that people consistently put the blame on whichever political party they oppose. This problem is huge- current estimates of total deaths due to the state of the benefits system is around 800,000 people dead- many through suicide after having benefits removed when they were found 'capable of work' by organisations like ATOS. This happens under the tories, and, it happened under Labour. It will continue to happen whichever political party is in power. The true cause is the bloated bureaucracy that infests the benefits system (and the others e.g. the NHS). Forms that are way too complicated for non-experts to fill in properly (all benefits forms come with the recommendation to contact the CAB before trying to fill them in, despite the face that the CAB is now on it's knees and is often unable to set appointments before the DWP form deadlines in many cases). Benefits 'helplines' that are never answered- see this SF thread concerning the impossibility of contacting Housing Benefits/council tax by phone- https://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1525166 thread titled- "SCC Council Tax Enquiry Line is Pointless" Disabled people trying to access an advocacy service to find someone to help them with the benefits system are often blocked by a similar array of bureaucratic forms and procedures, so they can't even complete the necessary bureaucracy to get a person they need to fill in the benefits forms! As an autistic person I am acutely sensitive to bureaucratic stupidity and, having done a lot of research into the 'Welfare Reform Deaths', it is clear to me that this cancerous overgrowth of bureaucracy is the root cause. It pains me to see, time and time again, the same knee-jerk response i.e. 'if only we can get labour/the liberals/whatever party in power, it will all stop.' And thus people pour all their effort and work into trying to convince everyone else to vote in yet another election that will only install another group of power-seekers who are, just like the last lot, totally unable to see the true root of the problem, and, will fixate on just setting up another set of overly bureaucratic systems to tackle the issues of the existing overly-bureaucratic systems.

It may be a generalisation, but, like many generalisations, it's a valid one. I was just addressing the fact that, in these discussions, often someone will point out that a particular line of argument is 'divisive', with the implication that it is therefore flawed. This is totally incorrect- an arguments validity rests entirely on it's actual content- the fact that some people really dislike it is utterly irrelevant (to it's validity). I don't recall anyone calling "people white supremacists because they have a different view on recruitment policy in the police force." If you quote the post/part of the post where this happened, I'll happily have a look at it. ---------- Post added 15-10-2017 at 12:09 ---------- No, it does not, the proof is absolutely overwhelming. But, the way the system preserves the status quo is by continually calling for yet another study, yet another poll, set up yet another investigative bureaucracy, yet another 'debate', to further stall actual action on rectifying the wrong that is already well established and obvious. IMO

Do we? If so, they don't seem to be selling gas and electricity to "as close to cost price as possible"

Arguments against systemic prejudice are almost guaranteed to be divisive, aren't they? An argument being divisive in no way impacts upon it's truth content. Some others, surely? Not everyone shares your opinions.

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/annals-of-appearances/what-will-taking-the-knee-mean-now contains a concise summary of "taking the knee"

Yes, there are even now, ways/errors by which an innocent can be convicted of a crime they have not committed. Not only does that not in any way justify adding unnecessary DNA errors to the mix, it's good reason to not do so (always good to minimize the risk of bad things happening) Yes, there is (IMO, far too much) use of personal data to 'sell' things. Again, if, as I do, you oppose it, adding to it with DNA is clearly undesirable. ----------------------------------------------- You asked for people's reasons why they oppose routine taking of and storing personal DNA. You said people never gave you reasons. Now you've been given lots of reasons, from me, and from others. You appear to want to pick, poke and quibble with the reasons given. Fair enough. But at least now, undeniably, you have been given reasons why people oppose this.

In my view, and that of many others who oppose governments routinely taking DNA samples from the population, the risk of such errors is not inconsequential. If the govt doesn't have my DNA on file, there is zero chance of me being convicted on DNA evidence alone for a crime I didn't commit. If they do have my DNA on file, there is a non-zero chance of me being convicted on DNA evidence alone for a crime I didn't commit. Strawman. The article I linked to was not addressing people being framed for a crime, simply pointing out that the inherent errors in DNA sampling mean that it's entirely possible that any given innocent persons DNA can be classed as a 'match' for that of a criminals DNA found at the scene of a crime. ---------- Post added 13-10-2017 at 11:58 ---------- Yes. Another good reason against compulsory taking of DNA from non-criminals.

Errors, leading to being arrested for a crime you've not committed. http://articles.latimes.com/2010/apr/09/opinion/la-oe-obasogie9-2010apr09

They do actually. Feeding human communities through animal produce uses around 10 times the quantity of plants than feeding them directly with plants. Clearing rainforests to grow the crops needed to feed the animals is also a major problem. Also uses far more water, which is becoming a scare commodity. Growing numbers of people are going vegan, or plant-based, or simply minimizing their consumption of animal produce, not only because of the extreme cruelty to the animals, but because they are aware of the harm to both the environment, and, to humans.

From the OP-