Mebh posted:

Harry Potter and the chamber of racism.

Comrade Fakename posted:

People are seriously overlooking the fact that that motherfucker didn’t just make a bizarrely awful video to run for president of his Conservative society, he loving won. Those weirdos voted for that.

Jaeluni Asjil posted:

£11 - don't all rush:

https://contestimg.wish.com/api/webimage/5b67f33beb55f6146197eb9d-large.jpg

Guavanaut posted:

Just going to leave a bunch of vulnerable people to die, sorry for the inconvenience.

namesake posted:

Elevation of 'Decorum' has been beaten to death in this forum as a source of liberal stupidity but there's absolutely a thread of thought amongst liberals that hypocrisy is somehow the weak spot of a politician or political movement. If someone can point out inconsistencies or convincingly describe how someone has acted differently according to how they've said things should be done then this is a powerful attack for some reason and will force them to change course.

It's completely powerless in reality but it is a really strong belief in some places as it chimes well with 'people do bad things because of incorrect information'.

Angrymog posted:

Blacklisting a charity isn't a casual decision.

In addition to that, Anti-money laundering regulations require the money to be provably clean every step up and downstream of the bank that handles it.

Editted to delete some stuff that's probably not relevant as the bank doesn't handle the charities accounts itself

Guavanaut posted:

In his garden?

goddamnedtwisto posted:

Okay really dumb question here - if it turns out that Covid infection *doesn't* grant immunity, could a vaccine even work?

goddamnedtwisto posted:

Okay really dumb question here - if it turns out that Covid infection *doesn't* grant immunity, could a vaccine even work?

Jippa posted:

Only one country (south korea) but they are saying that the cases of people getting reinfected were actually testing errors. Someone was posting about this yesterday I think.

https://m-en.yna.co.kr/view/AEN20200429007051320

Jel Shaker posted:

The slobbering over captain Tom is really getting to me, and I can’t believe piers Morgan is the most prominent government critic questioning why restarting the premier league is such a huge issue all of a sudden

Jedit posted:

Maybe someone should ask them why Britain isn't producing people like that any more.

Jedit posted:

It should surprise no-one that all the figures that the gammons worship are World War 2 veterans - Tom Moore, Vera Lynn, the Queen. Maybe someone should ask them why Britain isn't producing people like that any more.

Gonzo McFee posted:

https://twitter.com/LittleMisScouse/status/1255505378013569026?s=19

It's weird how often the "left his wife as she was going through cancer for the woman significantly younger than him" doesn't get brought up.

xtothez posted:

I think we all know what their answer will be.

learnincurve posted:

HELLO I’M THE FLOUR FAIRY.

This mill has got it together and has decided not to rip people off.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B087388HVL

kingturnip posted:

How many years until the media can start lionising the brave souls who flew planes and dropped bombs on Iraq in the name of "FREEDOM"?

quote:

I read with horror (Coronavirus: what would a year of physical distancing mean for the UK?, 23 April) that I am likely to be incarcerated for a year because of my age (71). If this proposal were to be made law, I would immediately seek to crowdfund a legal challenge on the grounds that 1) there is no power in the Public Health Act to lock down people not reasonably believed to be infectious, and 2) that this would be disproportionate to the danger, and discriminatory, and therefore contrary to the human rights convention.

Unless one suffers from a form of dementia, age does not impair one’s wits – over-70s with impaired health can be relied upon to take proper precautions. If, however, like me, they are healthy and in their right minds, they should be allowed their freedom like anyone else. There are no laws against dangerous sports, and it is many years since suicide was a criminal act.

One is entitled to take reasonable risks and, if necessary, I would be willing to sign a declaration waiving my rights to a hospital bed or a ventilator. I would hope that Keir Starmer, as an experienced human rights lawyer, would refuse to support this approach. For older people to be summarily deprived without good reason of precious time spent in crucial family relationships, when their days are necessarily naturally numbered, is cruel and I suspect and hope would be found illegal.
Salley Vickers
Wilcot, Wiltshire


Gaby Hinsliff (Social distancing isn’t going to end soon. So how do we live with it?, 23 April) makes the interesting observation that “If an octogenarian who has lived a long and fulfilling life would rather take their chances with Covid-19 than never see their grandchildren again, is it morally justifiable in the interests of containing the virus to keep them at home, or must we eventually seek the safest way of letting human nature express itself?”

This raises interesting wider questions. We allow people to make plenty of unwise decisions about their health, especially in relation to what and how much they eat and drink. These decisions, while not directly affecting others, can have unpleasant or even disastrous consequences. They certainly put pressure on the NHS.

So might we expect to see some debate over whether we remove liberties that affect other people and society in general in the way that we have done in the current crisis, or will we treat this as something exceptional?
Bob Wolfson
Rudford, Gloucestershire

quote:

I write to join Salley Vickers (Letters, 26 April), who wrote to protest against proposals to “protect” the over-70s against coronavirus by obliging them to remain in self-isolation possibly for as long as another 12 months. This is both an infringement on liberty and an insult against a massive group of able-bodied, hard-working people who are making important contributions to society. Like many others, I want to urge the government to abandon the idea of age discrimination in the fight to bring the pandemic under control. Any attempt to impose self-isolation on a specific age group needs to be resisted, and if necessary fought through the courts.

I understand that there is a view that older people deserve protection and should be spared any possible risk of infection by staying home and being supplied by friends and volunteers for their needs. But this is not for me. I belong to the over-70s who are physically and mentally fit, continue to lead active working lives, need the stimulus of real, not virtual social gatherings, and who look forward to theatres and concerts when they reopen. I also want to be free to travel again, and generally enjoy life.

I live on my own. For me, the imposition of self-isolation for any length of time – in plain words, being caged in – would be tantamount to a living death. That is why I applaud and join the growing number of people who are protesting against moves to separate the over-70s from their families and fellow citizens, and why I hope that many more will make themselves heard, and if necessary join in seeking legal action to restrain the authorities.
Hella Pick
London

May I express solidarity with Salley Vickers? The idiocy of this random cut-off is even more evident if expressed as year of birth, rather than age. Let’s compare a non-smoker and moderate drinker, born November 1947, with an officially approved body mass index, a career record of useful contribution to society, who is doing pro bono work that is currently frozen, to an overweight individual, born June 1964, who’s never done a day’s useful work in his life and has been demonstrably reckless with his own health and that of others. Now let’s decide which is the better bet for early release.

And yes, Salley, stereotyping of a protected group does smell like unlawful discrimination, and is worth a legal challenge. Bring it on.
Sally Phillips
London

I am 73. Until March, I had a business (paying tax on profits), now closed. I was active in my community. I cared for grandchildren. I am not unusual among my age group.

Comfortable retirement at 55 or 60 is long gone. Policy has forced a “post-retirement” age group to keep working, willing or not. Are we now to be viewed as a danger to society, our very existence a drag on the NHS? To be told to stay out of public view?

Governments long ago washed their hands of citizens needing care due to disability, chronic illness or age-related decline. Is this group now widened to over all over-70s, or perhaps even over-65s (Older people could face extended coronavirus lockdown, Lords hears, 23 April)?

This is not about protecting the over-70s. It is discarding us as useless and troublesome because we might need more NHS support than younger people.

I for one would not obey any recommendation or legal injunction to stay indoors 24 hours a day. I will continue to use my judgment and intelligence – qualities which our prime minister so patently lacked in going to an international rugby match on 7 March and boasting of shaking hands at a coronavirus hospital a few days before.
Nina Anstee
London

XMNN posted:

also lol at dropping a dig at those drat dirty benefit thieves in there, thanks old person

XMNN posted:

turns out old people are very mad about their own mortality and do not want people to remind them of it


https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/29/we-over-70s-will-fight-for-our-lockdown-liberty

give me liberty and give me death

also lol at dropping a dig at those drat dirty benefit thieves in there, thanks old person

Bobstar posted:

As actual WW2 veterans run out, the projection will be concentrated on fewer and fewer targets, until the last remaining person to have fought in the war spontaneously catches fire from all the boomer energy.

goddamnedtwisto posted: