Double Vaccination Required To Attend Premier League Matches

I think that is a completely false equivalence.

You can perfectly plausibly think both that vaccination should be a matter of choice and that it is a good thing which people ought to do. I'd suggest, in fact, that most people do think precisely that, and it is essentially the position taken by the government.

If you do think that, then why would you not also think that it would be good if as many people as possible globally should be vaccinated?

What would be inconsistent is if that person then said that vaccination should be mandatory for those to whom surplus vaccines are sent.

 

They do.

But the point is that these aren't 'their own' entry requirements, they are requirements which are/may be issued as a consequence of government action via Parliament (primary or secondary legislation). It's the latter which is most obviously challengeable as matter of law.

 

Really? I think that's a legally questionable assertion.

A public place (when defined in most laws) is a place to which the public have or are permitted to access whether on payment or otherwise.

 

It's not a false equivalence at all. It's absolutely spot-on, an excellent argument, and I really wish I'd thought of it first.

So here are all these vaccines delivered by magnanimous us to you despite me personally declining it and copping out. So do my job for me why don't you?

Yet again I accuse the legal profession of arguing black is white on the head of a pin simply for the sake of it.

 

Really? So what if WFC went it alone? Your argument is that they would be allowed to do so. So, if they simply went along with govt. diktat they could simply say, "no matter, we'd have done it ourselves anyway".

 

But why does the hypothetical person have to one who declines? Many, in fact most, people think vaccinatiion should be a matter of choice but also go ahead with it because it's the right thing to do. That seems to be the position you have argued for. In fact, that is the position taken by the government. I simply don't see any inconsistency in that case.

Just because you think it should be a matter of free choice doesn't mean you will decline the jab. The vast majority of people haven't.

 

I think that would be harder to challenge on human rights grounds because WFC are not a public body under the HRA (although I take UEA;s point about public places).

 

Blimey. The point being made here is that if you personally decline to take the vaccine, but are instrumental in offering it to the third world, so they might have the choice, you are being disingenuous beyond comedy. What would you expect them to say? Thank you so much sahib for offering us the chance to do something you weren't prepared to do yourself?

 

But that wasn't the point made in the original post, which said "No point sending vaccine to other countries if it’s acceptable to refuse to have the jab". The second one spoke of "having the choice not to be vaccinated".

"Acceptable to refuse to have it" and "having the choice not to be vaccinated" are not the same thing as declining the jab. If they are, then the UK would be being disengenuous in sending any surplus vaccines because we have made vaccination a matter of free choice.

 

OK thanks, but the bit which is weird to me is that they “were more concerned about the hitherto unknown long term health effects that the vaccine might present years down the line”. Vaccines have been around for over 200 years and have been highly successful in saving countless lives and in some cases completely eradicating diseases. Most people have them as children. Why do these people think the Covid vaccines are any different? Are they falling back on the rather flimsy argument that they were developed relatively quickly?

 

They're not 'anti-vaxxers', Comrade! They're just young folk who, having given the matter due consideration, have decided that they'd rather not get pricked. That's their personal choice

 

Was the evening completed by a renditon of 'Kumbaya' on the acoustic guitar?

(Just joshing, m8).

 

As opposed to the more representative sample of the Moose. Two thirds of 'young people' are going along with the mainstream agenda. Methinks you have an agenda to fit your sample to your agenda. Which is sad.

 

But what is his 'agenda'? He has had the jab.

 

Not a representative sample is what I’m saying.

 

I think quite a few would have a bit more sympathy with those who don’t wish to have the jab if so many pushing their cause hadn’t whinged instinctively the whole way through the pandemic, from each lockdown to face masks and now this.

The message is the same, help effectively eradicate the thing and you get to do whatever.

 

Perhaps it is flimsy argument. One man's flimsy argument is another's compelling truth! My point is (I thought!) a simple one - people should be free to choose whether or not to undergo a medical procedure without having their rights curtailed if they make the 'wrong' choice. How they arrive at their decision - if they have religious reasons, health reasons, if they trust David Icke more than Matt Hancock, or they are swayed by what others may consider a fairly thin argument is, frankly, nobody's business and irrelevant

 

Every evening is round ours. Except we sing Comb My Arse my Lord, Comb my Arse...

 

Fair point. Nuanced. But yet again I'll get back to the legal profession and pinheads though.

As an Environmental Scientist with little or no legal expertise (although I have come across it on occasion) I'd suggest that more benefit might come from facing a 102 year problem head on rather than pussyfooting about.

So, in essence, those who decline this vaccine without good cause, can choose to do so, but then should forfeit their right to comment further around the global problem and what might be best done to counteract it.

 

I don't have an 'agenda'!!! I personally have had both jabs and was very pleased to do so. Some people -for various reasons - do not wish to have the jab. I believe those people should not be penalised by the state or demonised by society for making that choice. There it is. That's my 'agenda'

 

Welcome back! To be clear, I'm not wishing to 'demonise' anyone. Least of all you. But you 'rattled my cage' first up which got us off on the wrong foot. So why don't we now proceed to something more considered? I've already been appreciative of your most recent posts. I don't agree with your bigger argument. But I think there remains common ground.

 

I couldn't work out how to trigger the ignore thing so we're stuck with each other!

 

You're still misunderstanding my point though. I am not talking about people who decline for no good reason. I am talking about people - like @Lloyd, to whom the origimal post was directed - who consider this to be a question of the exercise of free choice (and who we know has in fact had the jab). I don't think that holding that position is at all inconsistent with wanting the world to be vaccinated and it is, in effect, Boris's position too.

It's quite possible, of course, that I have misunderstood the point being made in the original post, but I think it's important to distinguish a groundless refusal to have the vaccine from a belief that one should have a choice whether or not to do so.

 

Agreed

 

So, should I be grateful that you didn't manage to do it? To be fair, I'd never choose to do it myself. Why choose to compromise yourself by opting not to see what an 'opponent' might write about you while allowing whatever you might write about them to be seen by all and sundry? Beats me.

Anyway Lloyd, I very much appreciate that you've stuck to your guns regarding 'personal choice' always trumping anything else in this thing. Backed up by Keighley and the 'legal argument' to a degree and you've taken on all and sundry in a minority in that respect. So, RESPECT then.

I disagree with your argument that personal choice, with no good reason, should trump the 102 year thing on this occasion but welcome us talking to each other again. Fireworks to come? Hope so. We've both got plenty to offer.

 

Throughout life I've always found that the people that pi55 me of royally when I first meet them turn out to be my best pals! I'm sure we'll agree more than we disagree but either way, look forward to it.

 

Cheers mate. Don't ya all just love it all? The sheer love in

 

For the record, I think you’re both ****s.

 

Ta. Tosspot

 

Interesting email re Brighton. All over-18 ticket holders must either show a negative PCR or lateral flow test within 48 hours of kick-off or proof of full vaccination via the NHS Covid pass or else they will not be admitted. Photographic ID also required.

 

Interesting. Will get there early*! Once organisations start doing this, much though it will infuriate Tragic Grandpa and the Lizard King, it will be left to a dwindling number of zealots to stew in their own gravy while the rest of us get on with life.


* to partake of the excellent pies

 

Similar requirements to Silverstone a few weeks ago. Checking the Covid Pass against ID only took a few seconds and then you were issued with a wristband. Will be fine, as long as people know exactly what is required.

 

It'll be interesting to see how rigidly this is enforced. The same thing was required of visitors to the recent Hampton Court Flower show but having spent an eternity faffing about getting the NHS covid app nobody asked to see it.

 

I imagine the people running the gate were increasingly concerned about the drunken flower-loving hooligans forcing their way in and wisely abandoned the checks to ensure their personal safety.