onewheeldave

2 hours ago, Waldo said:

Peacefully, not consenting to a search that someone has no legal right to do, is hardly 'acting up'.

 

Why are people intent on mis-characterising a lack of consent to a search (which store staff have no legal right to do, without evidence or cause for suspicion etc) as acting up or being obstructive?

That's what apologists do. 

9 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

If they overreact like this every time a "new variant" is discovered we'll be in this nightmare forever.

ENOUGH !

Oh, we'll be in this forever- it will be stretched out as long as it possibly can be.

Also, bear in mind that at any point, a REAL pandemic [i.e. with consequences like the Spanish flu or black death] could occur. Pretty much all efforts during covid have been focused on getting the public to jump through one ridiculous hoop after another, as a consequnce, very little has been done to tackle the actual causes [animal agriculture abuses, dire public health, disease issues arising from travel etc].

So when [not if, when] that REAL pandemic occurs, humanity is likely going down the toilet.

Equally, as things are going, we could well be in a global totalitarian state anyway.

3 hours ago, HeHasRisen said:

Omicron is an anagram of moronic.  Wake up sheeple!

It is quite apt!

Personally I don't think there is some shadowy conspiracy group behind this public fear campaign [rather that it is a natural consequence of the huge over growth of bureaucracy combined with a public eager to believe any old crap passed on to them by authorities and media], but, if there were, they couldn't be playing this one any better than they are

6 minutes ago, Annie Bynnol said:

You don't have to pass an exam or pay a membership fee, it applies to those show certain behaviours when  faced with events.

 

No- you're misusing language. You actually gave the correct definition of 'conspiracy theorists' in your earlier quote-

3 hours ago, Annie Bynnol said:

Conspiracy Theorist is not an insulting term , it has been used for decades to describe people who follow a Conspiracy Theory which "... is an explanation for an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy by sinister and powerful groups, often political in motivation, when other explanations are more probable." Wikipaedia

 

 

 

 

 

Then you add 

'They exhibit certain behaviour pattern including inventing terms to describe those who don't actively support their version of reality, for example :

" ...ultra compliers and pro-suppression [some will be, some will not]- those terms refer to the public majority who've bought into the covid insanity and sold their [and our] civil liberties down the river.:".'

Some conspiracy theorists may engage in that behaviour- it is not a defining characteristic of the term 'conspiracy theorist' though. Rather it is standard human behaviour to use invented and/or insulting terms to those who disagree with them.

Ironically your are yourself doing it by incorrectly applying the term 'conspiracy theorist' to people who disagree with you.

2 hours ago, Annie Bynnol said:

Conspiracy Theorist is not an insulting term , it has been used for decades to describe people who follow a Conspiracy Theory which "... is an explanation for an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy by sinister and powerful groups, often political in motivation, when other explanations are more probable." Wikipaedia

 

They exhibit certain behaviour pattern including inventing terms to describe those who don't actively support their version of reality, for example :

 

" ...ultrs compliers and pro-suppression [some will be, some will not]- those terms refer to the public majority who've bought into the covid insanity and sold their [and our] civil liberties down the river.:".

 

 

 

 

It is an insulting term when applied to people who aren't conspiracy theorists

1 hour ago, lazarus said:

The new rules for covid due to start on Tuesday is the right thing to do BUT why can’t people do what they are asked and wear a mask while shopping or travelling?  I’ve heard the excuse “ I’ve got asthma” I have that and it’s no problem for me to wear a mask for half an hour or so in each shop or while travelling, it’s just the people who just don’t want to do as they are asked for all our sakes.

...and so it starts again........

53 minutes ago, lazarus said:

Ignorant to think about others?

...same old cliched rubbish. What about you thinking about those badly affected by your complience to this hysterical hogwash and your attempts to shame them into going along with it??

15 minutes ago, lazarus said:

Yes I’m scared, I’m scared of dying, I’m scared of my loved ones dying but according to your way of thinking, some of the exempt people are not really ill they just don’t want to conform and what’s the alternative  not wear ineffective face masks, no mask and risk catching covid or spreading it.

The alternative is to realise the threat has been blown out of all proportion, then get on with your life accordingly.

8 minutes ago, Annie Bynnol said:

 

 

The vast majority of "Sunflower" lanyard wearers have no interest in your Conspiracy Theories.

They do not deserve to be referred to as ultra-compliers or pro suppressionists or anything else.

 

The irony!!!

You and others have used the insulting term 'conspiracy theorist' innacurately for anybody who disagrees with yours and the official narrative.

And yet you are critical when people who are ultra compliant get referred to as 'ultra-compliers', and, when those who are in favour of suppression [enforced lockdowns, compulsory masking, compulsory vaccinations] are refered to as 'pro-suppression'.

Incidently, I'm not aware of anyone referring to Sunflower lanyard wearers as ultrs compliers and pro-suppression [some will be, some will not]- those terms refer to the public majority who've bought into the covid insanity and sold their [and our] civil liberties down the river.

9 minutes ago, Resident said:

So you'd be confrontational & resistant. You know, that thing you say is "clearly not true"

 

I take it the onewheel is reference to being one wheel short of a full wagon..

 

Nope. I would be [look at the quote] 'as unobliging as I could and make things difficult for them.'

That would involve filming them- to ensure they're not going to try and 'plant' something in the bag; after all, I've done nothing wrong am they are saying I could be a thief, so, why should I not be concerned that they could be dishonest?

It would involve asking them questions they likely will not know the correct answers to e.g. 'am I being detained? Do you have the legal power to detain me? On what grounds do you suspect I've got something in my bag that I shouldn't have' etc, etc.

2 hours ago, melthebell said:

 

Another one that needs to read up on history, governments and the realities of life.

We have never been free, to do as we please Willy Nilly, freedom Is an illusion

Which is relevant how?

I am very aware of the fact that we do not have 100% freedom. 

All the more reason not to give up the freedoms we do have!!

If you think freedom in the UK is 'an illusion' then have a look at China, North Korea, Germany under the Nazis; you will see that we currently have considerably more freedom than those.

Sadly, with the attitude of the ultra-compliers and pro suppressionists, it is looking like we in the UK currently have considerably more freedom than we will in the near future!

When people like you can state with all seriousness-

"Life is about giving up rights"

it looks like we're in real trouble

11 hours ago, melthebell said:

**** OFF..im tired of being nice

Life is about giving up rights, we cant do what we want to, growing up is about giving up rights, we cant be kids all our lives

"Life is about giving up rights".

Seriously? If that is what a majority of the population really believe, then no wonder we've been a nation of total sheep when it comes to covid!

10 hours ago, top4718 said:

No, selfishness is following a cult centered around a mild illness whilst people miss cancer screenings, mental health goes through the roof, kids have virtually no future to look forward to, businesses go to the wall etc etc etc.

 

That's selfish my friend.

Well said.

15 minutes ago, Longcol said:

No but it's breaking the rules of the private premises .

Anyone wanting to check in my bag with no good reason is breaking my rules.

20 minutes ago, Padders said:

What a terrible attitude to have,

There only trying to do a job that there paid to do..

 

So were Amey employees when they were hacking down Sheffield trees. So are clampers working for those dodgy companies who put up virtually invisible 'no parking' signs. So are the chuggers who harrass shoppers.

2 minutes ago, Longcol said:

Go shop somewhere else then. Private premises like shops are entitled to introduce their own rules on their own premises as long as they don't break the law.

Not being immediately compliant when asked to show the contents of my bag is not breaking the law either. 

2 hours ago, Resident said:

And yes you are being confrontational/resistant. In this circumstance the adage of "if you have nothing to fear" rings true. An innocent person would oblige and prove their innocence. 
 

That is clearly not true- I would be as unobliging as I could and make things difficult for them.

Several other posters on this thread seem to feel the same.

2 hours ago, Resident said:

Guilty people resist because they don't want to get caught.....

Not just guilty people. And it is certainly not the case that only guilty people resist. 

Some innocent people resist- for the reasons given in this thread.

14 minutes ago, Thirsty Relic said:

Energy companies are under pressure from the Government to hit targets for installing these so-called "smart meters", so neglect to tell users that it's their choice whether they have them or not in literature.  The letters about these meters have been ramping up recently as well.  The effect of this is that the unwary think it is mandatory and just let them install them.  This leads to more pressure on those who haven't got them.

 

A more insidious tactic is that employed by British Gas.  They partner up with others to do the pressurising of customers for them.  That way, they can't be held responsible for how these meters are pushed.  You can assume that they are on bonusses for each installation of course, so if someone overteps the mark/tells lies/pressure sells its not BG.

 

Extract from letter I received recently:

 

"We're working with a company.... who are visiting customers homes on our behalf to talk about the benefits of smart meters.  If you'd like to upgrade, they'll be able to book the appointment for a time that works for you".

 

Doesn't sound bad, but you can imagine the heavy-handed techniques possible by someone on a bonus standing there on your doorstep with no witnesses.....

 

The letter gives a phone number to talk to BG about  these visits, but when I tried it, I was told that for them to take my name off the list to be given to the company, I had to discuss it with a member of their Smart Meter Team.  They transferred me but, after a long wait, no-one was answering.  Three attempts at this at different times gave exactly the same results.  Either their team is overwhelmed by people arguing that they will not have smart meters, or they simply put people through to a phone that is never answered!  No address is given, or any other oportunity to record refusal of these devices.

I'd suggest that the next person who sees someone like this should note down his name and details, and report it to your local councillor.  He/She could gather evidence and would probably be more able to put pressure on BG to stop this practice

And/or film them on the doorstop then stick the vid up on facebook/youtube, that's a good way of getting these dodgy tactics into the public debate.

1 hour ago, rudds1 said:

Friend of mine went to sports direct then went in to another shop.  When she got to the checkout at second shop she was asked could you open the sports direct bag  for inspection by the checkout person. She did do as asked but felt a little ashamed for this to happen at checkout in front of plenty of other customers.  Should stores be asking people to do this and would you object ?

I'd probably insist on filming any search of the bag on my mobile. On the grounds that otherwise they might slip in an item and accuse me of shoplifting.

16 hours ago, Longcol said:

You can vaccinate millions in a year as proven by the covid vaccine roll out.

 

Encouraging fitness regimes takes one helluva lot longer to work through to relatively small percentages of the population.

Encoraging fitness doesn't sacrifice civil liberties, coerced and compulsory vaccinations do.

8 hours ago, Chekhov said:

Are you kidding ? ! ?

You seem to be saying that only a relatively small percentage of the population are unfit ! ! !

I also note you did not add "being slimmer" which I did.

Cutting the obesity problem and the lack of fitness in this country would self evidently make far more of a difference to the strain the NHS is under, but don't just take my word for it :

 

https://www.england.nhs.uk/2014/09/serious-about-obesity/

Get serious about obesity or bankrupt the NHS

That's been the case for some time- make no mistake, a prime cause of the NHS being clogged up and the huge waiting lists, is the amount of resources being used to treat people with diseases that, in the main, are caused by diet and lack of fitness i.e. type 2 diabetes, obesity/overweight, heart disease etc.

The only way covid could ever 'overload' the NHS is as being 'the straw that breaks the camel's back' in the context of an NHS which is already on the edge of breakdown due to the above.

So I ask again, why is it that the focus has been on covid to justify civil liberty destroying lockdown measures, when it has always been considered OK for the NHS to be overwhelmed by the above lifestyle diseases that have attracted zero draconian measures?

8 hours ago, Chekhov said:

The principle is sound, though 75 is a bit old I'd have thought. You do have to remember that back in early 2020 few people seemefd confident we'd get vaccines of great effectiveness as quickly as we in fact did.

 

 

That is because the medical experts were stressing that effective vaccines would necessarily be years down the line, due to the extensive long term safety testing necessary before they could be launched.

3 hours ago, Carbuncle said:

As is typical you have not got your facts straight. Sweden did not let it rip. You have consistently mis-stated the policies of the Swedish government. For example, Sweden's state epidemiologist had a 'stay at home' recommendation all the way from March 25th, 2020 until September 28th, 2021. Yes, that's right Sweden tried to reduce the spread through non-pharmaceutical measures. They also, at times, had requirements related to the mask wearing in public spaces - despite what you have repeatedly asserted - although they generally tried to make recommendations rather than impose restrictions. Why can't you get your facts right? Why do you copy-and-paste straight from the covid sceptic sites straight into your brain rather than checking with reliable sources?

I think the point he is making is that if the UK's more draconian lockdowns and compulsory measures were to save the NHS being overwhelmed, how come Sweden's medical system was not overwhelmed given that it did not impose that level of draconian lockdowns and compulsory measures? It effectively casts great doubt on the assertion that such compulsory measures were in fact responsible for the NHS remaining underwhelmed.

2 hours ago, makapaka said:

Our child’s school has just reintroduced masks in school - which is bizarre given they’ve just all been through a vaccination programme which prior to they didn’t need to wear masks….

I'd suggest getting used to bizarreness- it is looking like this constant imposition of 'measures' will be strung along for a good few years. Covid is not going to go away, neither is the frenzied paranoia and erosion of civil liberties in the name of 'fighting' it [IMO].

1 hour ago, Annie Bynnol said:

Ordinary Conspiracy Theorists enjoy being superior and usually chide non-believers with comments like 'sheeple' and  'gullible'.

 

The far-right American Conspiracy Theorists have, for over a decade politized several Theories in order to further their agenda.

The language and style has changed and personal insults are the norm.

Creating enemies when there are none.

 

That a  Conspiracy Theorist would equate a murderer, who could only have operated in a far-right culture(or a communist dictatorship) with normal people, just shows the length to which the far-right Conspiracy Theorists will go in their scare and hate campaign. 

 

Most fascist regimes where 'murderers' can act unimpeded where not created by said murderers, but via a complex set of interacting factors which always includes decent people letting minor infringements of civil liberties go by. As those infringements become more frequent and more serious the 'decent' do not oppose, or even actively encourage, and, by the time it is obvious what is happening, it is too late.

This process is well documented over many many cases, one of which is the rise of fascism in Germany in the 1940's, communism in Russia, etc, etc- we're supposed to learn from these examples.

It is an entirely appropriate comaparison- currently we have seen several 'minor' [I would argue not minor] infringements of civil liberties in the name of protecting people from a virus.

Now there are instances globally of forcing people to be injected with a substance they do not want, whether by coercion [denail of access to essential social needs like employment/travel/education] and even outright compulsion.

1 hour ago, top4718 said:

The thin end of the wedge maybe:

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-pilot-to-help-people-eat-better-and-exercise-more

On the positive side, when it comes to covid, improving the health and habits of the general population should be an absolute priority.

That would also help minimise many of the 'lifestyle diseases' like type 2 diabetes, obesity, CHD etc, which are leading 'underlying conditions' that greatly increase morbidity with covid.

Whether anything the govt come out with in terms of 'apps' and wristbands will be of much use seems doubtful, but, even if it gets some of the sheep to walk a bit more and think about the amount of junk they put into themselves, it should help.

Hopefully it will bring into the covid debate that which has been severely lacking- a focus on the how our nations abysmal public health has been a huge contributing factor in the covid mortality statistics.

14 hours ago, Kidorry said:

I just gave my experience and not other peoples. And don`t be so clever.

In the context of replying to someone pointing out that lockdowns had had very negative effects on cancer treatments

19 hours ago, Kidorry said:

All my cancer appointments have gone the same as before so I don`t know where tops get his information from. Probably makes it up like all his comments

which is invalid [as reasoning] because the fact that you've been lucky is totally irrelevant to the reality that many, many people have missed out on cancer diagnoses and treatment due to the lockdowns. 

Anyway, if you looked at the link I posted, from the Lancet, you will now be aware that there is plenty of data out there showing that a lot of people lost access to cancer diagnoses and treatment during lockdown.

2 minutes ago, butlers said:

Referring to Covid vaccine as "muck"  ,denying they work etc is not the same as saying " In my individual cases,I judge I am safer not taking the vaccine"

 

He's being at best disingenuous.

 

 

 

 

 

This is an emotive subject and a very emotive thread, so the odd term like 'muck' is entirely forgivable- it's not like many of those opposing him aren't constantly using ad hominem attacks and insults, is it?

Clearly, in his opinion, the vaccine is not good- nevertheless, he's fine with people choosing to use it.

What he IS against, is it being compulsory.

1 hour ago, butlers said:

Your position is quite plain in the main thread.

 

His position is quite clear full stop. He's not anti vax, he's had vaccines himself, he's not anti covid vax- he is anti compulsory covid vaccinations.

Same for me.

54 minutes ago, Kidorry said:

All my cancer appointments have gone the same as before so I don`t know where tops get his information from. Probably makes it up like all his comments

Right- if yours have gone OK then everyone's must have. Can't argue with 'reasoning' like that can we

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(21)00148-0/fulltext

"The UK's NHS currently has more than 4·6 million people on waiting lists for surgery and 300 000 people have been on hold for more than 12 months—a wait time that is 100-times higher than before the pandemic. A large proportion of these delays are for patients with cancer, and the Royal College of Surgeons is particularly concerned, stating that it could take several years to clear the backlog. Moreover, UK cancer surgeons are increasingly fearful of a wave of compensation claims from patients unable to receive their treatment during the pandemic and whose cancers have subsequently progressed and become harder to treat. Moreover, lockdown-associated lifestyle habits—eg, unhealthy diets and reduced physical activity—could cause a further increase in the prevalence of obesity-related cancers in the years ahead."

30 minutes ago, top4718 said:

Only time will tell, they've been pretty much back to normal and have been throughout the plandemic, unfortunately the covid obsessed don’t take into account the physical and mental damage that lockdowns etc cause, just the black and white.

 

This is indeed, the big, big problem.

The mainstream narrative is so obsessively focused on the problems arising from the virus, that it seems almost blind to the problems caused by the lockdowns in terms of mental illness etc- even less so the damage to freedom and civil liberties.

1 hour ago, L00b said:

Yes: no more coerced than compulsory vaccination, but without any fine, hence a free choice both literally (no fine) and figuratively (get vacc’d or don’t).

 

 

The free choice would be- 'here's a vaccine- you can either have it, or not have it: if you choose the latter, there will be no consequences imposed by the authorities.'

If there are consequences imposed by the authorities, whether they are removal of access to healthcare, removal of access to cinemas/resteraunts etc, then it is not a free choice, it is a coerced choice.

1 hour ago, L00b said:

 

 

Public healthcare resources are finite. They should be prioritised to those members of society who act in society’s best interests. In the context of the pandemic, that is vaccinated persons, who -in aggregate- reduce the strain on healthcare services through reducing the potential for complications from an infection.

Yes they are limited.

If, as you say, 'They should be prioritised to those members of society who act in society’s best interests', then why is only one group of the guilty being targeted?

Given the huge drain on NHS resources due to diseases caused almost entirely by bad lifestyle and dietary choices e.g. type 2 diabetes, obesity and heart disease, why are you focusing on the unvaccinated as opposed to those who don't exercise and/or eat a healthy diet?

1 hour ago, L00b said:

I agree with your sentiment.
 

How about a simple “no free/public Covid-related treatment/healthcare for the non-vacc’d” rule (save for those medically proven to be non-vaccinable, ofc), rather than mandatory vaccination under threat of big fines?
 

That would be a free choice 👍🏻

 

 

No- removing access to healthcare is a coerced choice