Coronavirus Pandemic

[Niall_Quinn]

Not in the least hyperbolic, if anything I found the English language restrictive in describing this creature. Maybe Latin would have been better.

Your other response, above, is the same as the last one and the one before that. But thanks anyway.

[Mac76]

By the way
This is a bit hyperbolic, isn't it?! I'm not a huge fan of him but I think "darkest days humanity has faced" is somewhat overstating things!

no he's right

[Letters]

Your other response, above, is the same as the last one and the one before that.

Yes. And I once again responded to all the things you said I'm not responding to

[Niall_Quinn]

Yes. And I once again responded to all the things you said I'm not responding to

By not responding. Simply saying, sure, a shitload of authoritarian crap is now on the books or slouching towards them unchallenged, but it won't affect anything because we are now allowed to go to discos is hardly a response. It's a dismissal of the issue and a changing of the subject.

Anyway, we don't need to discuss it anymore because Justin Trudeau gave us a practical demonstration of the reality. Now Biden has activated the new "Jan 6" measures in advance of U.S. citizens stepping out of line. The idea none of it will make any difference is pure fantasy in the face of the actual differences that are occurring. Being "allowed" to visit a restaurant without informing on yourself to the state has no direct relevance.

I have pointed out the obvious difference between principle and practice. To dismiss principle for practicality is to open the door for abuse, whether the abuse immediately, or ever, occurs or not. The mere possibility it can legitimately (in terms of law) occur is inherently unacceptable. I can say, I have a right to enter your home when I choose, although I won't. Are you satisfied with that? It makes no difference in your life, because I won't enter your home. But I reserve the right to, especially if some "emergency" (which I will arbitrarily assign) occurs.

To remind you. The state and its agents can now commit crimes without liability. The state and its agents can criminalise public protest against the state and its agents. The police will soon be able to detain a citizen without reason or suspicion of criminal intent or behaviour. For starters. That's the mild gateway authoritarianism that has been winning plaudits from citizens suffering under more draconian regimes, in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, France, Germany, parts of the United States, for example. And, of course, hell holes like China, Korea, Russia, Saudi, etc, etc, which used to be examples of what civilised nations should avoid at all cost but to which our governments now aspire.

Trudeau's puppeteers have decreed it is legal for the state to steal money, steal property, suspend the democratic process, hire agents without oath and then bestow extraordinary powers on those mercenaries. And so on. Tinpot tyrants in Australia can snatch people off the streets and lock them in camps, indefinitely if the victim does not comply. We'll see what the lunatics controlling Biden have up their sleeves and behind the curtain in the coming days and weeks as Americans attempt to exert their constitutional rights.

None of this may be happening on your street. That's of small consolation to the millions of people (and growing) who used to live in relatively free societies but are increasingly at risk of falling under jackboots should they step an inch out of line. Closer and closer to the Chinese ideal.

This is what I mean by non-response. You casual dismissal of real world events while claiming "my science" is biased or your party-going trivialities are alive and well addresses nothing, answers nothing.

You've even celebrated being "allowed" to go to church, proving conclusively you do not (or do not want to) understand what principles are.

[Niall_Quinn]

Crap, forgot to preempt your obvious response. No, the UK is not Canada or Australia or the USA. But it is a key component of the globalist structure that is being imposed on the planet and in which our peers are also intimately engaged. You must decide if your street will lead the western and global trends or if powers further afield will instead impose their will on you. There is recent precedent to guide you. The former might be considered naive, although I wish it were possible.

[Niall_Quinn]

Here's my affiliate link if you want to get another booster shot: https://www.itwasallaboutprofitforda.../?id=suckerlol

[Niall_Quinn]

Here we are, from the horse's arse.

https://www.gov.uk/government/speech...-summit-speech

Do you understand now?

[Letters]

By not responding. Simply saying, sure, a shitload of authoritarian crap is now on the books or slouching towards them unchallenged, but it won't affect anything because we are now allowed to go to discos is hardly a response. It's a dismissal of the issue and a changing of the subject.

There are two things. One is the bills which you have highlighted. The other is the restrictions on our day to day lives. Those two things are tangentially linked, the link being that the latter shows the type of government we have, and that informs the potential impact the bills might have. I have agreed that the bills are of potential concern. My gut feel though is they won't make as much difference as you think.
I might be wrong about that, but time will tell. I don't really know what else there is to talk about now other than to agree there are concerns.
It's not that the bills won't affect us because we are allowed to go to discos. But the fact that all the Covid measures have been rolled back - which, remember, is the exact opposite thing to what you predicted would happen - does tell me that we're not living under the authoritarian regime you suppose. And that leads me to believe that the bills won't be used in the draconian way you imagine. But I guess we'll see. Right now I don't know what there is to discuss about them, the paint is barely dry on them, we don't know for sure what affect they will have.

I have pointed out the obvious difference between principle and practice. To dismiss principle for practicality is to open the door for abuse, whether the abuse immediately, or ever, occurs or not. The mere possibility it can legitimately (in terms of law) occur is inherently unacceptable. I can say, I have a right to enter your home when I choose, although I won't. Are you satisfied with that? It makes no difference in your life, because I won't enter your home. But I reserve the right to, especially if some "emergency" (which I will arbitrarily assign) occurs.

But this is what I've been saying, your issues are ideological. You object to the very principle of a government which can tell us what we are allowed to do and what we aren't. I don't object to that. In a complex society some order is needed. As bad as our version of democracy is, it's better than having a dictator or a monarchy (I mean in the old school sense where the king makes the rules). Democracy is the solution pretty much every country has come up with to the problem of "getting stuff done" - building infrastructure, making laws which we all understand, etc. And yes, there is a price for that - the price being we give up some of our freedom. You don't think that's a price worth paying, I do. And the reason I do is that to continue to your analogy, if you'd said hundreds of years ago that you had the right to enter my home but, actually, you never have. Or fine, you have a couple of times when there's been an emergency but you've left when that emergency is over then I have some confidence that you're not just going to barge in while I'm in the bath for the lolz. If you barged in every 5 minutes for spurious reasons - as they do in some countries - then I might have more of an issue with it.
You have an ideological issue with the idea of a government which can "allow" me to go to church - and therefore not allow me to. I do understand your issue with that principle, I just don't have an issue with it myself and have explained why.

I simply don't agree that there has been ever increasing control on our day to day lives over time. Neither do I agree that there is ever increasing unity between nations in terms of their regimes. You highlighted some of the differences in your post. Those things didn't happen here, I like to think they wouldn't. Throughout this thing countries handled the situation in very different ways.

There are benefits to living within a structure like we do and there's a cost. I personally think the latter is worth it. You don't.
This is a fundamental difference in our worldview and I'm not saying I'm right and you're wrong. We just see this differently.

[Niall_Quinn]

We managed to survive without these powers the state has granted itself and its agents. In fact their absence was a a confirmation they work for us and not the the way around. Why are these powers needed now?

[WMUG]

We managed to survive without these powers the state has granted itself and its agents. In fact their absence was a a confirmation they work for us and not the the way around. Why are these powers needed now?

Are you talking about Covid restrictions or the anti-protest laws?