Vaccine Passports/Permanent restrictions

[Nicholas Lewis]

As i've just said in the roadmap thread, he was asked if it would be voted on in parliament. It's a simple question and hugely important given how big the issue is but he couldn't give a simple answer.

Of course it should be voted on but that would mean potentially losing their iron grip on control.

If they try to avoid a vote and the Labour opposition don't join forces with others seeking to protect our freedoms they will be finished as far as im concerned.

 

[greyman42]

If they try to avoid a vote and the Labour opposition don't join forces with others seeking to protect our freedoms they will be finished as far as im concerned.

And i think Starmer would be finished as well.

 

[dave87016]

Any party that doesn’t stand up and oppose restrictions on our freedom are not worthy of my vote

 

[greyman42]

Any party that doesn’t stand up and oppose restrictions on our freedom are not worthy of my vote

Completely agree.

 

[PHILIPE]

If they try to avoid a vote and the Labour opposition don't join forces with others seeking to protect our freedoms they will be finished as far as im concerned.

Perhaps he is afraid that his MPs opposing it will stick to their guns on this subject and instead of opposing it when it comes to the crunch vote and usually vote in favour rather than against the party line. Boris daren't run the risk of losing a vote.

 

[Eyersey468]

Any party that doesn’t stand up and oppose restrictions on our freedom are not worthy of my vote

Completely agree.

And me

 

[35B]

(one Wikipedia version)

Replace Communists with anti-vaccers, Socialists with anti-lockdowners, and the others with any group which YOU specifically are not a member of and have no concerns about the the impact of the latest restrictions upon. They will come for you, it's just a matter of when.

And what will they do when they come for you? Niemoller acted at a time when he knew what a concentration camp was, and he spent many years in Dachau. The comparison with government policy here is odious and false; the limitations we have now bear no relation to those faced by dissidents in totalitarian states.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

And what will they do when they come for you? Niemoller acted at a time when he knew what a concentration camp was, and he spent many years in Dachau. The comparison with government policy here is odious and false; the limitations we have now bear no relation to those faced by dissidents in totalitarian states.

So at what point should people start to object to increasing restrictions on their liberty?

I get that you are happy to give up your liberties 'for the greater good'. Personally I want minimal state interference in my life. Only when genuinely necessary and based on evidence - not cobbled together 'scientific' studies where the conculsion doesn't even match the body of the report and even that summary being mis-spoken to the public (facemasks in general settings). I want there to be a measurable benefit in introducing a restriction on my freedoms, not simply 'oh it'll make Mabel feel safer'.

 

[87electric]

And what will they do when they come for you? Niemoller acted at a time when he knew what a concentration camp was, and he spent many years in Dachau. The comparison with government policy here is odious and false; the limitations we have now bear no relation to those faced by dissidents in totalitarian states.

Totalitarian States start somewhere, and by God has it started. The people (should) control the Government, it isn't the other way round. This is a global transformation of constitutions and I will fight with every last breath to oppose this. If you don't want your liberties 35B, fine, give them up, but do not expect the rest of us to rollover.

 

[cuccir]

I don't have much to add to this thread except to agree. Domestic vaccine controls for access to employmet or services must be rejected. I am willing to hear out arguments for short-term exceptions for hiring among health and social care workers, but even that I do not like and would bbe willing to reject if convinced it was a back-door for broader use.

 

[NorthKent1989]

I can see more cases of greater regional autonomy to be honest, maybe this vaccine passport will speed up the break up of the U.K.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

I can see more cases of greater regional autonomy to be honest, maybe this vaccine passport will speed up the break up of the U.K.

Well i reckon Sturgeon will just jump on the passport bandwagon as shes already more cautious than BoJo but my belief is SNP won't have the resounding win the pundits expect come May elections as electors pushback.

 

[Eyersey468]

Totalitarian States start somewhere, and by God has it started. The people (should) control the Government, it isn't the other way round. This is a global transformation of constitutions and I will fight with every last breath to oppose this. If you don't want your liberties 35B, fine, give them up, but do not expect the rest of us to rollover.

I agree. Its the way that people have accepted every word the government says without question and the way the government and the media messaging has been used to divide people which I find really concerning.

 

[RomeoCharlie71]

Well i reckon Sturgeon will just jump on the passport bandwagon as shes already more cautious than BoJo but my belief is SNP won't have the resounding win the pundits expect come May elections as electors pushback.

The cynic in me thinks Sturgeon is refusing to comment explicitly on vaccine passports as she's afraid it'll affect her party's polling result. Come May 6th, the SNP get a majority, they say "the Scottish population have trust in our pandemic response, hence they've re-elected us to get us on the road to recovery" and impose vaccine passports. Any opposition will be met with the same crap she trots out daily that she "makes the best decisions possible for the Scottish population".

 

[Jonny]

The cynic in me thinks Sturgeon is refusing to comment explicitly on vaccine passports as she's afraid it'll affect her party's polling result. Come May 6th, the SNP get a majority, they say "the Scottish population have trust in our pandemic response, hence they've re-elected us to get us on the road to recovery" and impose vaccine passports. Any opposition will be met with the same crap she trots out daily that she "makes the best decisions possible for the Scottish population".

Which is going to be opening her up to a whole load of mockery, which will fall upon those who have to enforce it as well. It is unfortunate that her party leader-level predecessors include a certain Arthur Donaldson, who was interred during WW2 for having sympathies with National Socialists, it is not unreasonable to imply that the N in SNP maps to national socialism.

In fact, if the passports scheme gets called fascist then that will be all that England needs to roll back, after all it then looks like pushing back against fascism.


Oh, and one of my potential ^breakng points^ is, once I have declined to be vaccinated (after the impingements of the past 12 months, I will only take risk-free measures which a vaccine can never be, especially one barely out of phase 3 trials and rushed ones at that) I will only accept ongoing measures which I do not consider to be being used to ^require^ me to take the vaccine and I will expect to be treated the same as anyone else.

Edit: merged post

And just afterwards, this appeared in my Facebook feed:

https://www.facebook.com/thedarrengrimes/posts/295400301974023


Darren Grimes about an hour ago

I went to sleep in 2021 and woke up in 1984.

I couldn't have put it any better myself.

 

[farleigh]

And what will they do when they come for you? Niemoller acted at a time when he knew what a concentration camp was, and he spent many years in Dachau. The comparison with government policy here is odious and false; the limitations we have now bear no relation to those faced by dissidents in totalitarian states.

Freedom of expression - gone.
No punishment without law - gone
Right to respect for private and family life - gone
Freedom of thought, conscience and religion - gone
Freedom of assembly and association - gone
Right to marry - gone
Prohibition of abuse of rights - gone
Right to education - gone.

The comparison with government policy is sensible and true. (except in most totalitarian states you will not have lost the right to marry)

 

[MikeWM]

Totalitarian States start somewhere, and by God has it started. The people (should) control the Government, it isn't the other way round. This is a global transformation of constitutions and I will fight with every last breath to oppose this. If you don't want your liberties 35B, fine, give them up, but do not expect the rest of us to rollover.

You won't be alone. Niemoller's whole point is how you get to the stage where these things happen, and how you try to prevent them, not what happens to the people to whom these things happen later.

As for 'what will you do when they come for you?' a little Solzhenitsyn may be in order

And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.

Are we there yet? No, but let's make very sure we never get to the point where we need to lament that we didn't love freedom enough.

 

[kez19]

I agree. Its the way that people have accepted every word the government says without question and the way the government and the media messaging has been used to divide people which I find really concerning.

No wonder terms such as brainwashed and even mind control springs to mind, I always say question things but seems people are going with the flow without thinking but I blame all parties in this (media/SAGE/politicians), they are all in this together (that’s a phrase that gets thrown around a lot)

 

[MikeWM]

As i've just said in the roadmap thread, he was asked if it would be voted on in parliament. It's a simple question and hugely important given how big the issue is but he couldn't give a simple answer.

Of course it should be voted on but that would mean potentially losing their iron grip on control.

I didn't watch it (fortunately I had better things to do - finally polishing off the Caterham branch in South London ) but by all accounts it was a cowardly performance. Seems like someone who knows he is doing something deeply wrong and yet for some reason is pressing ahead with it anyway.

 

[takno]

I didn't watch it (fortunately I had better things to do - finally polishing off the Caterham branch in South London ) but by all accounts it was a cowardly performance. Seems like someone who knows he is doing something deeply wrong and yet for some reason is pressing ahead with it anyway.

He still thinks he's Churchill. He's smart enough to realise it shouldn't feel quite like this, but not smart enough to realise that if he doesn't end up changing course he's going to start looking like the other chap.

 

[Freightmaster]

He still thinks he's Churchill. He's smart enough to realise it shouldn't feel quite like this, but not smart enough to realise that if he doesn't end up changing course he's going to start looking like the other chap.

If only Boris was a figment of our collective imagination like JoJo Rabbit...




MARK

 

[Bantamzen]

And what will they do when they come for you? Niemoller acted at a time when he knew what a concentration camp was, and he spent many years in Dachau. The comparison with government policy here is odious and false; the limitations we have now bear no relation to those faced by dissidents in totalitarian states.

I'm trying to work out if you are just being a bit naive, slightly argumentative, or actually seeking to defend restrictions. I honestly cannot work it out.

So at what point should people start to object to increasing restrictions on their liberty?

I get that you are happy to give up your liberties 'for the greater good'. Personally I want minimal state interference in my life. Only when genuinely necessary and based on evidence - not cobbled together 'scientific' studies where the conculsion doesn't even match the body of the report and even that summary being mis-spoken to the public (facemasks in general settings). I want there to be a measurable benefit in introducing a restriction on my freedoms, not simply 'oh it'll make Mabel feel safer'.

Well it seems that @35B thinks that you should only object once it can be demonstrated that the state is now in full totalitarian mode, by which time it would be too late. Or in other words they would just have us accept what our masters tell us, especially if it is for "the greater good".

Totalitarian States start somewhere, and by God has it started. The people (should) control the Government, it isn't the other way round. This is a global transformation of constitutions and I will fight with every last breath to oppose this. If you don't want your liberties 35B, fine, give them up, but do not expect the rest of us to rollover.

Exactly, as has been said time & again, totalitarian states start somewhere, they don't just appear out of thin air.

 

[DustyBin]

You won't be alone. Niemoller's whole point is how you get to the stage where these things happen, and how you try to prevent them, not what happens to the people to whom these things happen later.

As for 'what will you do when they come for you?' a little Solzhenitsyn may be in order

And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.

Are we there yet? No, but let's make very sure we never get to the point where we need to lament that we didn't love freedom enough.

This is exactly the point, and I’m pleased several people are making it.

Do I think we could see mass murder by the state in 21st century Britain? No, not at all. Do I think we could see the permanent removal of our civil liberties and increased state control over our day to day lives? Yes, it’s quite possible. The warning signs are there and it’s no good waiting until it’s happened before calling it out. If there is no such intention that’s great news, maybe I’ll have made myself look like a tinfoil hat wearer on an internet forum but I can live with that. I’m at the stage where I’d rather take that risk as opposed to ignoring what appears to be happening and living to regret it.

 

[jumble]

I am very annoyed about this.
I nearly decided not to have the Vaccine as I have an excellent immune system and am not keen on having chemicals pumped into my body that might conceivably damage my immune system.
I did have it because I am doing it for other people as urged by The Queen.

I am now told I may have to prove the fact that I have had it to carry on doing the right thing for other people which is a step too far and that even though I have allowed interference with my body I most likely must wear a mask for the next 12 months.
I doubt very much that having had both Vaccinations by June 21st I am going to carry on wearing a mask in shops or public transport which I now do as a matter of course

I think that any "proof" of a negative test will come from the fact that the proof is generated by the person self testing and uploading a negative result which is absurd if you think about it.

My conclusion is that using covid certificates to prove anything is utter nonsense and the real reasons might be
The government want ID cards by stealth
They want to be able to track and trace from the certificate
They want to reassure the stupid who think an app is proof of safety
They are concerned about the communities who refuse to be vaccinated, many of whom do not seem to wear masks on public transport either and of whom unfortunately I have no interest in protecting
I will do my best to avoid showing any "proof" to anyone on principle

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

This is exactly the point, and I’m pleased several people are making it.

Do I think we could see mass murder by the state in 21st century Britain? No, not at all. Do I think we could see the permanent removal of our civil liberties and increased state control over our day to day lives? Yes, it’s quite possible. The warning signs are there and it’s no good waiting until it’s happened before calling it out. If there is no such intention that’s great news, maybe I’ll have made myself look like a tinfoil hat wearer on an internet forum but I can live with that. I’m at the stage where I’d rather take that risk as opposed to ignoring what appears to be happening and living to regret it.

Spot on erosion of our civil liberties begins the destabilisation of society and people then resort to tactics that the state will respond to which in its worst excess could easily result in a more brutal police state. This country has the where with all to do this if its wants to.

Only the liberals and very unlikely bedfellows with some right wing Tories are mounting any sort of response at the moment with the official opposition completely absent. With the majority they have I can't see anything changing and by the next GE the other parties will end up attracting a split voter base and that will ensure they stay in power. How people can't see what's happening is the most worrying thing but hardly surprising as politics is no longer relevant to most people given TV and now Social Media being more important to the populous.

 

[nedchester]

And how do they even think this could be enforced before we even get to the civil liberties issues.

Covid passports could be required for clothes shopping, indicates Downing Street | The Independent

 

[david1212]

So at what point should people start to object to increasing restrictions on their liberty?

I get that you are happy to give up your liberties 'for the greater good'. Personally I want minimal state interference in my life. Only when genuinely necessary and based on evidence - not cobbled together 'scientific' studies where the conclusion doesn't even match the body of the report and even that summary being mis-spoken to the public (facemasks in general settings). I want there to be a measurable benefit in introducing a restriction on my freedoms, not simply 'oh it'll make Mabel feel safer'.

Exactly.

What you have missed on the end is ' , appease SAGE etc, tick a box that we have done something so we can't be accused of ignoring a flaky report or it ought to score us some political points '

....

My conclusion is that using covid certificates to prove anything is utter nonsense and the real reasons might be
The government want ID cards by stealth
They want to be able to track and trace from the certificate
They want to reassure the stupid who think an app is proof of safety
They are concerned about the communities who refuse to be vaccinated, many of whom do not seem to wear masks on public transport either and of whom unfortunately I have no interest in protecting
I will do my best to avoid showing any "proof" to anyone on principle

Within the UK I think likewise.

Further generally I totally distrust that any information given for one purpose will never used intentionally for another, in some way leaked or acquired through hacking and totally deleted after a stated time period.

And how do they even think this could be enforced before we even get to the civil liberties issues.

Covid passports could be required for clothes shopping, indicates Downing Street | The Independent

Totally ridiculous.

 

[Ascotroyal]

And how do they even think this could be enforced before we even get to the civil liberties issues.

Covid passports could be required for clothes shopping, indicates Downing Street | The Independent

As somebody who is a manager of a well known clothing store there is no way il be enforcing that or any other stupid rules the morons running the country come up with.

 

[dave87016]

I think we can expect lockdown before the next relaxing of restrictions ( 17th May or June 21st at latest ) as IMO that’s what all these “advisors “ on the news are hinting at , like I said Boris seems only to keen to hope obstacles and put obstacles in the path of our way to freedom and normality

On the subject of Boris am I the only one today who has noticed Boris “seems” to have changed his wording he seems to be referring to covid passports for international travel , not mentioning domestically - more in hope that those who are against it will sweep it under the carpet

 

[35B]

So at what point should people start to object to increasing restrictions on their liberty?

I get that you are happy to give up your liberties 'for the greater good'. Personally I want minimal state interference in my life. Only when genuinely necessary and based on evidence - not cobbled together 'scientific' studies where the conculsion doesn't even match the body of the report and even that summary being mis-spoken to the public (facemasks in general settings). I want there to be a measurable benefit in introducing a restriction on my freedoms, not simply 'oh it'll make Mabel feel safer'.

You won't be alone. Niemoller's whole point is how you get to the stage where these things happen, and how you try to prevent them, not what happens to the people to whom these things happen later.

As for 'what will you do when they come for you?' a little Solzhenitsyn may be in order

And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.

Are we there yet? No, but let's make very sure we never get to the point where we need to lament that we didn't love freedom enough.

It's nothing to do with whether I agree or disagree with you on the measures being taken; it's the obscenity of the comparison being made. Just pause a moment to reflect on the nature of the regimes Niemoller and Solzhenitsyn faced.

Freedom of expression - gone.
No punishment without law - gone
Right to respect for private and family life - gone
Freedom of thought, conscience and religion - gone
Freedom of assembly and association - gone
Right to marry - gone
Prohibition of abuse of rights - gone
Right to education - gone.

The comparison with government policy is sensible and true. (except in most totalitarian states you will not have lost the right to marry)

And this demonstrates the hyperbolic nonsense that's being spouted by apparently intelligent people. The existence of this forum, and complete legality of posts like yours, disprove in themselves what you say about freedom of expression or thought, while my attendance at church most weeks since last July and that of my kids at school (albeit by Teams till early March) shows that the rights of thought, conscience, religion and education remain. And with those basics in your assertion disproved, I see no reasons to believe your other contentions. Which, with this Home Secretary and the legislation she's pushing through, is rather counter-productive when you start to argue what you do about freedom of assembly.