Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Yes please I think we would like to know all about it. Saying "I didn't foresee any problems so I didn't bother to…" As I say I didn't bother to look when I cross the road because I didn't think I would be run over
    • My WS as I intend to send it... any problems anyone can spot?         In the county court at Middlesbrough Claim No:  Between Vehicle Control Services Limited (Claimant) V   (Defendant) Witness Statement Introduction It is admitted that the Defendant is the registered keeper of XXnn XXX   Locus standi/bye-laws and Relevant land Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 (PoFA) allows recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. However, the first paragraph 1 (1) (a) states that it only applies “in respect of parking of the vehicle on relevant land:”. The definition of “relevant land” is given in paragraph 3 (1) where subsection (c) excludes “any land ... on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control”.  The bus stop is not on relevant land because the public road on which that stand is on is covered by the Road Traffic Act.  Notwithstanding that the claimant claims that " the claimant has given the Defendant its contractual licence to enter the site", the claimant has not given any contractual licence whatsoever. This is a road leading to/from the airport which is covered by the Road Traffic Act.  A list of highways on the Highways act 1980 does not even exist. The defendant brings the attention of the court that VCS is using this non existent document issue as a deliberate strategy to debunk the fact that this road is not relevant land. VCS are put to strict proof that it is relevant land not covered by the Road Traffic Act nor by Byelaws. While it is true that landowners can bring in their own terms, it is also true that whatever terms they bring  cannot overrule Byelaws and the Road Traffic Act. If Bye Laws are involved then the bus stop is not relevant land and neither is the specious argument about First Great Western Ltd. Is the claimant ignorant of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012? The road outside of Doncaster Sheffield Airport is not relevant land and is not covered by the Protection of Freedoms Act. That makes the charge against the claimant tantamount to fraud or extortion. The claimant mentions a couple occasions where they have won such cases. It is brought to the attention of the court that none of those cited cases were on airport land. VCS actually has also lost a lot more cases than they have won using their prohibitive signs.  Airport land is covered by Bye Laws and hence the claim by VCS is not applicable in this instance. The remit of VCS ends in the car park and does not extend to the bus stops on public roads or land which they have no jurisdiction over. All classes of people go to the airport. This includes travellers, taxis, fuel bowsers, airport staff, companies delivering food and drink for each aircraft, air traffic controllers and buses with passengers. It is therefore absolutely ridiculous to attribute VCS with any sort of permissions. The defendant submits that VCS should not confuse a major thoroughfare with a car park and presume to act as land owners and usurp the control of any land which is not relevant to them.   Protection of Freedoms Act The clearest point on section 4.1 of the Protection of Freedoms act is that “The provisions in Schedule 4 are intended to apply only on private land in England and Wales. Public highways are excluded as well as any parking places on public land which are either provided or controlled by a local authority (or other government body). Any land which already has statutory controls in relation to the parking of vehicles (such as byelaws applying to airports, ports and some railway station car parks) is also excluded.” Therefore, as this case pertains to an airport, the claimant unlawfully obtained the registered keeper’s details against the defendant’s vehicle. Thus, on this basis alone, the defendant implores the court to throw out this case. Notwithstanding the above point, if perchance Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms act 2012 were to apply, the claimant is put to strict proof that they complied with the requirements of section 7 stating, “(1)A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to driver for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(a) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met. The notice must — (a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;” Without such proof the court must of necessity throw out this case forthwith.   Deceit, Intimidation and Extortion The Claimant’s Particulars of Claim include £50 legal costs, yet in the letter dated  03/06/2021, the Claimant stated that they were no longer represented by Elms Legal and all further correspondence should be sent to the VCS in-house litigation department. Why should the Claimant be asking the Defendant to contribute to their employee’s salary?  Furthermore, as per another letter dated 30th July 2021, the Claimant wrote, ‘Should you fail to accept our offer of settlement then we will proceed to Trial and bring this letter to the Court’s attention upon question of costs in order seek further costs of £220 incurred in having to instruct a local Solicitor to attend the hearing in conjunction with the amount claimed on the Claim Form.’ I find this an extraordinary statement given the Claimant knows legal costs are capped at £50 in Small Claims Court. I cannot think of any reason why the Claimant would write this letter other than to intimidate the opposing party with the threat of an extortionate sum of money, hoping they would be able to take advantage of someone not knowing the Small Claims Court rules. Given that this letter came from the Claimant’s in-house litigation department, clearly well-versed in the law, this cannot be anything but deceitful and disingenuous behaviour which the court should never tolerate.    Contractual costs / debt recovery charge  In addition to the £50 legal costs, the Claimant is seeking recovery of the original £100 parking charge plus an additional £60 which is described as ‘debt collection costs’. In the Vehicle Control Service v Claim Number: 18 on 4th September 2019, District Judge Jones-Evans stated, ‘Upon it being recorded that District Judge Jones-Evans has over a very significant period of time warned advocates […] in many cases of this nature before this court that their claim for £60 is unenforceable in law and is an abuse of process and is nothing more than a poor attempt to go behind the decision of the Supreme Court in Beavis which inter alia decided that a figure of £160 as a global sum claimed in this case would be a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore unenforceable in law and if the practice continued he would treat all cases as a claim for £160 and therefore a penalty and unenforceable in law. It is hereby declared […] the claim be struck out and declared to be wholly without merit and an abuse of process.’  In Claim number F0DP806M and F0DP201T, Britannia v Crosby went further in a landmark judgement in November 2019 which followed several parking charge claims being struck out in the area overseen by His Honour Judge Iain Hamilton-Douglas Hughes GC, the Designated Civil Judge for Dorset, Hampshire, Isle of White & Wiltshire. District Judge Taylor echoed the earlier General Judgement or Orders of District Judge Grand stating, ‘It is ordered that the claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedom Acts 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in ParkingEye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998…’ Vehicle Control Service v Claim Number: 19 51. Moreover, the addition of costs not specified on signage are also in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, Schedule 2, specifically paras 6, 10 and 14.  It is the Defendant’s position that the Claimant in this case has knowingly submitted inflated costs and thus the entire claim should be similarly struck out in accordance with Civil Procedure Rule 3.3(4).  The Defendant is of the view that the Claimant knew, or should have known, that to claim in excess of £100 for a parking charge on private lands is disallowed under the Civil Procedure Rules, the Beavis Case, the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 and Consumer Rights Act 2015, and that relief from sanctions should be refused.   Alleged contract The court should consider if there is any contract to start with and if the alleged offence is on relevant land. The consideration will inevitably lead the court to conclude that there is no contract.  Also the court should note that there is no valid contract that exists between VCS and Peel. Under the Companies Act, a contract should be signed by the directors of both companies and witnessed by two independent individuals. This alleged contract, which makes no mention of pursuing registered keepers of vehicles to court, makes its first appearance as a Witness Statement. Thus the alleged contract is null and void.  The Beavis case referred to by the claimant is about parking in a car park. The claimant is here attempting to equate that case to stopping, not parking, in a bus stop and on a road that is covered by the Road Traffic Act. The defendant submits that there can be no contract as there is no offer but there is only a prohibition. Again, it is not relevant land and VCS has absolutely no rights over it. Further, the defendant would like to point out that motorists NEVER accept any contract just by entering the land. First they must read it and understand it and then, and only then can they realise that "No stopping" is prohibitive and cannot offer a contract.   Bus stop signage The signs around the bus stop do not mention who issued the “No Stopping” signs so it could not have been issued by VCS since the IPC CoP states that their signs should include the IPC logo and that the creditor should be identified. Nothing on the signs around the bus stop that says “NO Stopping” mentions VCS or Peel Investments who are now purporting to be the land owners of a public road. As the signage should identify the creditor, since it does not, this is a breach of the CoP.   The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 does not prohibit stopping in a restricted bus stop or stand, it prohibits stopping in a clearway. The defendant would like to ask the court to consider if any clause of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 that the claimant alleges has been violated by the defendant. There is no mention of permits on the signage. If there were, would it mean that Permit holders were allowed to stop on “No Stopping” roads? Notwithstanding what the claimant calls it, the mentioned signage is NOT a contractual clause. A “No stopping” sign is not an offer of parking terms.  Since the signage around the bus stop is prohibitive, it is as such is incapable of forming a contract. Further, the defendant would like to point out that the prohibitive sign is not actually at the bus stop but a few metres before the stand itself. There is no mention of a £100 charge for breaching the “No stopping” request, or if there is one then it is far too small to read, even for a pedestrian. As already stated, a Witness Statement between VCS and Peel Investments is not a valid document. It will need more than the Claimants feather to outweigh the case against the Defendant regardless of who was driving. There is no law of agency involved. This is not a case of employer/employee relationship. VCS cannot transfer the driver's liability to the registered keeper. There can be no comparison between a railway station and an airport. This is a totally fatuous analogy which cannot be applied to this case.  As stated in the defence, it is denied the Claimant is entitled to the recovery or any recovery at all. The nefarious parking charge notice given for a vehicle on a public road bus stop was ill advised to start with.   Conclusions:   VCS has failed to present ANY reasonable and valid cause to apply to the DVLA for the Defendants details. VCS has failed to provide ANY valid  contract with the landowners. “No stopping” is prohibitive therefore cannot form a contract the event happened on a bus stop over which VCS has no jurisdiction the signage either does not show that there was a charge of £100 for stopping, or the font size was too small for any motorist to be able to read it  the signage does not show the Creditor which fails the IPC CoP and hence the signage is not valid the WS contract does not authorise VCS to pursue motorists to Court Given all these factors it seems that VCS have breached the GDPR of the Defendant quite substantially and it would appear right that an exemplary award is made against VCS in the hope that they will drop all further cases at Doncaster airport where they are pursuing motorists on non relevant land. The Defendant wishes to bring to the attention of the court that the Claimant cites an irrelevant case of a car park and tries to apply its merits to a bus stop. That in itself invalidates the entire fallacious claim. Accordingly, this case is totally without merit. Some statements are pretty close to perjury and others are designed to mislead or misdirect. None of the analogies seem appropriate or relevant. All the false information presented as a statement of truth could have been stated using half the words and without all the repetition which appears to be trying to build a strong case where there is none at all. One particularly bad example of misdirection is in the photographs. The Clearway sign shown near the bus stop is very unclear unlike the Clearway sign two photos before it which may well include terms and conditions. The one by the bus stop is totally different.   47. Lastly I wish to bring to the attention of the court, a systematic pattern of the Claimant’s court action behaviour in several of their cases. They tend to have a VCS paralegal writing a Witness Statement, then mentioning in the last paragraph of the Witness Statement that they may be unable to attend court and subsequently the paralegals never turn up to be cross examined. In the event that Mohammed Wali is unable to attend court to be asked about his claims, then I would like to know why he is not able to attend when the hearing has been scheduled months in advance, is during working hours and as a result of covid, is online, meaning there is no travel involved. Ambreen Arshad, the other paralegal employed by VCS, does exactly the same. 
    • Hang on. don't panic!   You sent the snotty letter which has told the fleecers to put up or shut up.  So far they've haven't taken you to court.  This might change, but so far you're in the driving seat.  You don't have to deal with them any more.  It's up to them if they have the gonads to start court action or not.   Regarding DCBL, they are not representing their client in the normal way that a solicitor represents a client, because the sums of money involved are too low for that.  They are just chucked a few quid to send a couple of "threatening" letters.  There is no point in dealing with them.   If you want the original PCN send a SAR to UKPCM only.  For the SAR letter simply click on "SAR".   However, the SAR has nothing to do with the 30 days, you've already dealt with that with the snotty letter.  You need to read lots of similar threads and familiarise yourself with the legal process.  CAG is a superb free library.    
    • Hi again, so I will send a SAR to UKPC because I don't remember seeing the  NTK.  Then should I let DCBL know otherwise they will probably issue the court papers but they might hold off if i tell them about the SAR?   what do you think?  I need to do it this weekend or it will be beyond the 30 days.  Otherwise to let it run will definitely lead to a court case perhaps??   Can I get a copy of a SAR letter on here? thanks
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

Mutating Corona Virus


Recommended Posts

If the UK Government gets its stategy wrong of wanting to get back to normal without masks or social distancing, we could see daily Covid rates hit very levels.  With more people having the need to be treated in hospital and more people dying,  Government would have no choice but to have lockdowns where required. 

 

I am seeing more people now commuting into offices and with schools back, I predict that by the end of September, the numbers won't look very good. Get ready for lockdown in October a week or two before the school half term which is around the end of October. With a lockdown of 2 to 3 weeks during October, the hope will be that the NHS will be in a better place to cope during the Winter.   And the government will introduce mask wearing and social distancing again for a period.

  • I agree 1

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

HT

I have zero doubts the vaccination program was worthwhile - although could and should have been better.

The information was all there (as linked)

 

More the fall off in anti-bodies than longer between jabs - hence more Israelis had 2nd jab longer ago and a coresponding drop off in anti-body first defense levels - hence the third booster jab, a quite subtle difference in perspective, but an important one for defining 'issues I think. Also consider that the Israeli's came out of lockdowns sooner than us based on their visible successes.

* Also be aware that Israels testing regime is far more 'capable/wide ranging than ours so will catch more infections.

 

HT

You yourself noted that anti-body levels increased dramatically after the second dose - and that was also seen in the trials at the recommended intervals

 

The stretching of the period between vaccinations was almost certainly purely based on availability and getting more first doses in

- and as such was a right choice IMO - and perhaps the easiest available option hence a prime contender.

We now know that (up to 50%) smaller (particularly booster) doses is and was another option which apparently wasn't properly investigated.

 

 

"vacuous and economically illiterate" "Moral emptiness and epidemiological stupidity”

“veil of ignorance” "unrepentant and inveterate liar" 

Boris Johnson Mendex est

 

“The failure of the cheerleaders of Brexit to acknowledge the consequences of Brexit as due to Brexit remains remarkable.” - David Schneider

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also Consider that 73-76% inoculation/infection generated 'immunity' was touted as  'herd immunity' level by some touting the myth of covid 'herd immunity' and still being touted by some

We are now at 80+% 'fully inoculated adults and almost 90% single inoculated adults according to coronavirus.data.gov.uk

PLUS all the infections ...

... with cases rising significantly

"vacuous and economically illiterate" "Moral emptiness and epidemiological stupidity”

“veil of ignorance” "unrepentant and inveterate liar" 

Boris Johnson Mendex est

 

“The failure of the cheerleaders of Brexit to acknowledge the consequences of Brexit as due to Brexit remains remarkable.” - David Schneider

Link to post
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, tobyjugg2 said:

You yourself noted that anti-body levels increased dramatically after the second dose - and that was also seen in the trials at the recommended intervals

They did but what is maybe more interesting was the tests I did at twelve weeks post first dose and around four months (maybe more) post second.  Most recent was only a couple of weeks ago and although antibody levels are not as high as they were four weeks after the second dose they are still at a comfortingly adequate level - about a 25% drop.

Link to post
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, tobyjugg2 said:

 

The stretching of the period between vaccinations was almost certainly purely based on availability and getting more first doses in

- and as such was a right choice IMO - and perhaps the easiest available option hence a prime contender.

It was the right choice as it turns out.  I'm just thinking there seem to have been further benefits which were not forseen, more luck than judgement maybe. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, hightail said:

It was the right choice as it turns out.

 

A right choice, based on availability

A better choice based on information that was available (simply including the trial information that 50% doses gave almost as much protection) + vaccine availability may well have been to have smaller doses at the recommended intervals which would have allowed more vaccinations from the same amount of vaccine with a speedier generation of high levels of anti-bodies

 

 

 

52 minutes ago, hightail said:

They did but what is maybe more interesting was the tests I did at twelve weeks post first dose and around four months (maybe more) post second.  Most recent was only a couple of weeks ago and although antibody levels are not as high as they were four weeks after the second dose they are still at a comfortingly adequate level - about a 25% drop.

 

See prior links

Each persons reactions depend on the vaccine used and health-age-immune system-other interactions with covid/similar virii-other infections boosting immune and practicing/preparing immune systems/ (eh the Reporting that those with flu jabs and MMR (and other) vaccination appeared to give peoples immune systems a better chance of fighting covid)

Your drop appears to be at the low end of reported fall off which is great for you -

- those with compromised immunes for example (per already linked reports) may not have got ANY significant antibodies with 2 doses - but are with the third - again depending on what medication they were on at the time among other things

Just as pretty much everyone - even immune compromised had (re)boosted anti-body levels with a third dose 4/6 months+ after the second as already referred

 

12 hours ago, honeybee13 said:

Didn't the herd immunity percentage figure go up after the delta variant appeared?

 

Yes - over 97% 'immunisation' level requirements was reported as needed,

I showed/linked the math which clearly showed it had already gone over 100% vaccination/immunised (which is over 97% sic) - daft but the well defined and tested math allows that for a number of reasons

 

Edited by tobyjugg2

"vacuous and economically illiterate" "Moral emptiness and epidemiological stupidity”

“veil of ignorance” "unrepentant and inveterate liar" 

Boris Johnson Mendex est

 

“The failure of the cheerleaders of Brexit to acknowledge the consequences of Brexit as due to Brexit remains remarkable.” - David Schneider

Link to post
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, tobyjugg2 said:

Your drop appears to be at the low end of reported fall off which is great for you

Do you have a link to the study TJ?  I would be interested in the numbers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So where does this leave the tiny minority of medically unable to have a vaccine, due to previous allergic reation, jab and die or no jab and isolate?

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, hightail said:

Do you have a link to the study TJ?  I would be interested in the numbers.

 

I'm Sure I already linked Lancet, bmj and israeli reports .. which contained links to the supporting studies

Didnt you read them?

 

Nothing I'm aware of in any valid detail from UK sources inc Oxford other than bmj

"vacuous and economically illiterate" "Moral emptiness and epidemiological stupidity”

“veil of ignorance” "unrepentant and inveterate liar" 

Boris Johnson Mendex est

 

“The failure of the cheerleaders of Brexit to acknowledge the consequences of Brexit as due to Brexit remains remarkable.” - David Schneider

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds a bit brusk I know,but understand I have built that understanding almost exclusively with links here

 

For example That pfiser antibodies start off higher and fall off (generally) slower than O/AZ jabbed

- understanding and accepting the evidence for that before you question with a prove to me the individual cases - which simply aren't available

 

eg despite recent claims from O/AZ that they are 'equivalent' or some such smudge after  x months when no-one else sees that and sees something far different:

 

 

So look here, which also defines many of the issues in the studies, BUT they are quality studies and far better than the O/AZ claims of something different from a dozen or so selected test results.

 

WWW.MEDRXIV.ORG

medRxiv - The Preprint Server for Health Sciences

 

"vacuous and economically illiterate" "Moral emptiness and epidemiological stupidity”

“veil of ignorance” "unrepentant and inveterate liar" 

Boris Johnson Mendex est

 

“The failure of the cheerleaders of Brexit to acknowledge the consequences of Brexit as due to Brexit remains remarkable.” - David Schneider

Link to post
Share on other sites

What a farce ! Attended an office and by lunchtime was on my way home as someone had a positive covid test, so office could be subject to deep clean. 

 

This type of situation is happening around the UK, because people are having to go back to work in offices while covid rates are too high.

 

  • Sad 2

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes whole thing is farcical UB, that aircon and ventilation issue needs a solution as well

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lack of qualified engineers to verify ventilation standards. Think of how many places they would need to inspect.

 

Lack of cleaners to do deep cleans when offices have to close due to covid.

 

Government are moving too quickly and will end up locking down soon, when this could have been avoided.

 

 

  • Like 1

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I don't know all the technicalities but very early on in the pandemic, our own @BazzaSsaid the virus spread through droplets that we exhale when we breathe or speak. 

 

I'd like to thank Bazza again for educating me when I needed it, this has guided how OH and I have protected ourselves throughout. I remember the last time I saw my GP in person, very early on, all the doors and windows were open and air was flowing freely. 

 

Going back to ventilation, it can't have come as a surprise that it needed to be looked at in work premises, schools, etc.

  • I agree 1

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

More than half of the problem is the visible government 'messaging'

 

Relax all restrictions, no one needs to wear a mask, anyone can cram into a disco .. etc with quiet mutters and mumbles of 'don't do it though'

Can anyone wonder that some, perhaps many people really do think its all over?

.. despite even whitties simple statement -  which is being swamped, not least by his own caveating , excusing and delimiting the decision on vaccinating 12-16 yo's

 

"“Anybody who believes that the big risk of Covid is now all in the past, and it’s too late to be making a difference, has not understood where we’re going to head as we go into autumn and winter”"

 

 

Edited by tobyjugg2
  • I agree 2

"vacuous and economically illiterate" "Moral emptiness and epidemiological stupidity”

“veil of ignorance” "unrepentant and inveterate liar" 

Boris Johnson Mendex est

 

“The failure of the cheerleaders of Brexit to acknowledge the consequences of Brexit as due to Brexit remains remarkable.” - David Schneider

Link to post
Share on other sites

After leaving the office lunchtime, I wondered down to the nearest high street shops.  All very busy with no social distancing and few masks being worn.

 

People who looked to be 70+  not wearing masks, it is a bit worrying.

 

Have the double vaccinations and encouragement from Government, made people think they are now so well protected, they will not get very ill, if they got Covid ?  

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

WWW.INDEPENDENT.CO.UK

People from top nine priority groups who have been fully vaccinated for more than six months will be eligible for booster

 

Edited by tobyjugg2

"vacuous and economically illiterate" "Moral emptiness and epidemiological stupidity”

“veil of ignorance” "unrepentant and inveterate liar" 

Boris Johnson Mendex est

 

“The failure of the cheerleaders of Brexit to acknowledge the consequences of Brexit as due to Brexit remains remarkable.” - David Schneider

Link to post
Share on other sites

and dont forget to switch your darn pinger app off before crowded meetings

 

5316.jpg?width=445&quality=45&auto=forma

"vacuous and economically illiterate" "Moral emptiness and epidemiological stupidity”

“veil of ignorance” "unrepentant and inveterate liar" 

Boris Johnson Mendex est

 

“The failure of the cheerleaders of Brexit to acknowledge the consequences of Brexit as due to Brexit remains remarkable.” - David Schneider

Link to post
Share on other sites

From Ian Dunt on Twitter a bit earlier today. Says it all really.

 

'We pi**ed away the summer. No attempt to get numbers down while the weather was good. No attempt to ventilate offices or schools. No support for isolation. No effort at all to get us into a better place before the cold weather arrives..

  • I agree 2

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just cant resist it

Fake Bo**ocks stays up despite Twitters covid misinformation rules

 

WWW.EURONEWS.COM

We're almost two years into the COVID-19 pandemic and disinformation remains rife on social media.

 

Twitter clearly finding Minajs' undoubtedly self promoting bo**ocks just too much of a handful to handle

 

 

Didnt know who she was, still dont and certainly dont want to know

Lets hope any future career is now tied to GB news (check the initials)

 

Edited by tobyjugg2

"vacuous and economically illiterate" "Moral emptiness and epidemiological stupidity”

“veil of ignorance” "unrepentant and inveterate liar" 

Boris Johnson Mendex est

 

“The failure of the cheerleaders of Brexit to acknowledge the consequences of Brexit as due to Brexit remains remarkable.” - David Schneider

Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, honeybee13 said:

From Ian Dunt on Twitter a bit earlier today. Says it all really.

 

'We pi**ed away the summer. No attempt to get numbers down while the weather was good. No attempt to ventilate offices or schools. No support for isolation. No effort at all to get us into a better place before the cold weather arrives..

Everything I find on past pandemics (Ancient civilisations through to Spanish flu) indicates that they last for three years. I don't have access to anything special, only documentaries etc. but it does seem to be a constant.  We may think of ourselves as better than previous generations/civilisations and we do have access to so much more science and technology but although we can stop so many diseases now, once one gets hold seems it will run the course no matter what.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...