Online safety bill.

Sponsored Links
Not worried. I got the Astrazeneca jab.:mrgreen:

Considering Pfizer have distributed 3 billion vaccines to 181 countries i'd imagine their success rate is quantifiable as the rate of infection has become subdued.

What does it have to do with Online Safety?
 
Very good point that well brought up.
Not think it could have something to do with you asking me about whether I'd passed covid onto my wife. Looks like she could have been passing it on to all and sundry, she had the fizzy jab.
 
Sponsored Links
The Online Safety Bill should distinguish between your opinion spreading information regarding the virus and official guidance from a respected body of scientists.
Which respected body of scientists is that? The ones that support the official narrative or the ones that don't?

The Online Safety Bill is about protecting vulnerable children like Molly Russell.
"Alexa, tell me what I should be believing today." Lol.

Next they'll be ending child poverty in the UK, right?
 
That is 1 hell of a claim.

Without any thing to prove it or back it up it stands out for what it is.

Wild unsubstantiated nonsense
Which bit of 'Anecdotal of course' didn't you understand?

And excess deaths due to treatable diseases are now on the rise as reported by the BMJ...

The cuts in routine testing and longer waiting times because of the fanatical attention paid to the 'virus' is becoming clear...

"Liz Truss has received a stark insight into the dire state of the NHS after new figures showed millions of people in England were facing often record delays to access vital healthcare.
One leading NHS expert said the long waits for care, diagnostic tests and hospital beds showed that Britain’s new prime minister “inherits an NHS in critical condition”.
The total number of people in England waiting for hospital treatment rose again to a record high of 6.8 million at the end of July – almost one in eight of the population."

Linky Linky

How many on that ever increasing list will die over the coming years?

But these deaths won't be recorded as 'virus' deaths will they, as opposed to the recording of deaths of those with the 'virus' as being because of it!

If you think that is 'Wild unsubstantiated nonsense', then like many jab junkies you are a tad thick!
 
Which respected body of scientists is that? The ones that support the official narrative or the ones that don't?
I seem to recall that a 'respected body' of people were blamed for the failure to find WMD's in Iraq after an illegal war killed hundreds of thousands...

And the real experts were ignored, or got the 'Kelly treatment'!

This farcical bill is simply a further attempt on censorship but in another name!
 
:mrgreen:

Considering Pfizer have distributed 3 billion vaccines to 181 countries i'd imagine their success rate is quantifiable as the rate of infection has become subdued.

What does it have to do with Online Safety?
Ah, but you are 'imagining' this success...

Any thoughts as to whether the 'virus' (like all others) has nearly run it's course?

Or that the human immune system (as almost always) is reasserting control?

Of course if the bill restricts the reporting of this because it goes against the official narrative, then 'online safety' as regards exposing censorship is very relevant!
 
Yeah. Keep bangin' the rocks together, guys. You'll get there. One day.:cool:
 
What an awe inspiring post.

When Whitty was asked about this even before jabs were available he said vaccinations usually reduce transmission not prevent it.

LOL Vaccinations do nothing at all other than prepare the immune system until a person catches what ever they are for. That might give you a clue. A bit of help - the immune systems response is speeded up so people are infectuous for a shorter period.

TBH I don't believe that they were unaware of asymptotic infection or if they were not for very long.

In my case it looks like I caught it off my wife in ~1day and before she had symptoms.
 
Do you know how this played out ajohn. People in Germany couldn't go to supermarkets, people were prevented from travelling on planes boats and trains etc etc if they hadn't followed the science and been jabbed. People were made out as social outcasts because they hadn't had the jab, in turn they couldn't get a 'passport' to engage with society.
Not remember Nick Ferrari on the radio saying people should be fined £1000 if they hadn't had the jab?
Don't believe me ? Read what the dutch fella said who asked the question in the eu.
I'll save you the trouble.

 
LOL Vaccinations do nothing at all other than prepare the immune system until a person catches what ever they are for. That might give you a clue. A bit of help - the immune systems response is speeded up so people are infectuous for a shorter period.
Actually the infectious period has very little to do with the immune system overall, it's more to do with an individual's immune system and it's ability to fight off a virus regardless of jab status...

But the approach to this 'virus' has been haphazard to say the least...

How many jabs have been recommended, and how many types of jabs on offer?

A person's immune system could be forgiven for thinking WTF is going on and simply refuse to act as it was intended to do!
 
I seem to recall that a 'respected body' of people were blamed for the failure to find WMD's in Iraq after an illegal war killed hundreds of thousands...

And the real experts were ignored, or got the 'Kelly treatment'!

This farcical bill is simply a further attempt on censorship but in another name!
Yep, plus the provision that Ofcom can order services to use "accredited technology" to scan content could spell the death knell of online privacy via end-to-end-encryption.

Plus, Part 10 of the proposed Bill says this about 'Harmful and False communications offences':

(6) The following cannot commit an offence under this section—
(a) a recognised news publisher as defined by section 50;
(b) the holder of a licence under the Broadcasting Act 1990 or 1996;
(c) the holder of a licence under section 8 of the Wireless Telegraphy Act
2006;
(d) the provider of an on-demand programme service.

So it looks like the stenographers are off the hook, it's the rest of us that aren't.
Move along, nothing to see here.
 
Yep, plus the provision that Ofcom can order services to use "accredited technology" to scan content could spell the death knell of online privacy via end-to-end-encryption.
And how different is it to poo tin making anyone claiming that there is a war going on in Ukraine a criminal?
 
Sponsored Links
Back
Top