Jump to content

kj35

Members
  • Posts

    2,127
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Everything posted by kj35

  1. Are you referring to me? Given I posted my grandfather was Jewish? And me and TS don't always agree on the subtleties.
  2. But seriously. Every time something bad happens here I learn massively new good things. Last 24 hours it's computer security. So thanks Danny - seriously mean it even if I'm 're reading it to try and get my head around it.
  3. Well. That's cheered me up. ?
  4. I had this earlier but the stuff I was pasting had hyperlinks in it so I removed that and it worked. Might just be an extra layer of security fttb
  5. I have one of my own. "I keeps it in its room and I feeds it" It does not rub the lotion on its skin as it stinks. It plays its fortnite game. I think it is still alive as I can hear it trolling other players.
  6. I'd remind him you might have to sell your soul to the coronavirus testing just to keep him in kibble (or whatever it is teenage boys eat) and if he doesn't stop stomping you'll unplug the Wi-Fi. ?
  7. Got a top tip from a mate today. They reckon best time to go to the supermarket is 8 o clock on a Thursday. All the muggles are at home banging their pans ;-)
  8. There was plenty of footage from the RT news network showing how peaceful everything was. It was posted here before the hack x
  9. Sensible article from today's Sunday Times The lesson of Covid-19 is brutally simple and applies generally to public regulation. Free people make mistakes and willingly take risks. If we hold politicians responsible for everything that goes wrong, they will take away our liberty so that nothing can go wrong. They will do this not for our protection against risk, but for their own protection against criticism. The lockdown was originally justified as a temporary measure to spread coronavirus infections over a longer period. This was to allow time for the NHS’s critical care capacity to catch up. Hence the slogan “Protect the NHS”. It was never much of a rationale. The NHS is there to protect us, not the other way round. How could its unpreparedness possibly justify depriving the entire UK population of its liberty, pushing us into the worst recession since the early 18th century, destroying millions of jobs and hundreds of thousands of businesses, piling up public and private debt on a crippling scale and undermining the education of our children? Since the prime minister’s broadcast last Sunday, the lockdown has found a new rationale. The government has dropped “Protect the NHS” from its slogan. The reason is plain from the paper it published the following day. The NHS is not at risk. This is partly because the government has done an outstanding job in increasing intensive care capacity, and partly because the threat to the NHS was always overstated. The critical care capacity of the NHS has nearly doubled since January, even without the 4,000 or more additional beds in seven temporary Nightingale hospitals. Around the top of the spike in infections, on April 10, 41% of NHS general acute beds were empty. Only 51% of acute beds were occupied by a Covid-19 patient. The current figure is 20%. The Nightingale hospitals stand empty. These are government figures. Today, the lockdown is only about shielding us from the risk of infection. This raises serious questions about our relationship with the state. It is our business, not the state’s, to say what risks we will take with our own health. We are not fools or children needing to be told by ministers what is good for us, and forced by police officers to do it. We should not need to consult ministers, as the first member of the public to phone in to the daily press conference did, about whether she was allowed to hug her grandchildren. The usual answer is that by going out and about we may infect other people. But that no longer works as an excuse for coercion. Those who do not want to run the risk of being infected can isolate themselves voluntarily. They will be no worse off than they are under the current compulsory regime. The rest of us can then get on with our lives. The continuance of the lockdown is particularly odd given that in its latest paper the government accepts that, whatever we do, Covid-19 is likely to be with us long term. So unless it plans to keep the lockdown in place for ever, all that it achieves is to put off the moment when we have to face the risk anyway. The prime minister told the House of Commons on Monday that his new so-called plan was workable because the British would use their common sense. In that case, why not allow them to do so by leaving the decisions to them? Instead, we are resorting to law, which, because it requires exact definition, will always cover very many things that are perfectly harmless. Thus it was OK to go for a walk in the park but not to sunbathe. It is OK to drive to the Lake District but not to visit your second home. It is OK to meet one person but not two, and OK to do it in the front garden but not in the back. This kind of thing is arbitrary and absurd. It discredits the law as well as those who make it. So how has the government ended up in this unsustainable position? The answer is that, having originally embarked on a sensible policy that would have avoided a lockdown, it did a 180-degree turn on the afternoon of March 23, without thinking of the wider implications. It was in a blind panic provoked by Professor Neil Ferguson’s “reasonable worst case” of 510,000 deaths. Quite apart from the fact that a worst case is by definition an unlikely one, few scientists now support this figure. But it has had disastrous consequences. It pushed the government into making a decision that mocks our humanity and treats us all as mere tools of government policy. The government terrified people into submission by giving the impression that Covid-19 was dangerous for everyone. It is not. It attacks people with serious vulnerabilities. By most estimates, between 0.5% and 0.75% of infected persons die. Of those, 87% are over 65 and at least 90% have multiple causes only one of which is Covid-19, according to the Office for National Statistics. The death rate for those under 50 is tiny. For the overwhelming majority, the symptoms are mild. Yet Matt Hancock solemnly intoned that “if you go out, people will die”, in what was surely the high point of governmental hype. The prime minister’s broadcast was supposed to be his Churchillian moment. Instead, we beheld a man imprisoned by his own rhetoric and the logic of his past mistakes. The lockdown is now all about protecting politicians’ backs. They are not wicked men, just timid ones, terrified of being blamed for deaths on their watch. But it is a wicked thing that they are doing. Lord Sumption is a former Supreme Court judge and last year’s BBC Reith
  10. I'll copy it into today's news. As it was in today's news :-)
  11. Yes posted his article which is in today's Sunday Times earlier in the thread. Excellent.
  12. Been lurking as a guest whilst signed out (which doesn't feel right) as wasn't sure if my account was still messing up. I don't think it is, just coincidence. But this post really stood out. Explains a lot. Thank you.
  13. Yep. Something funny going on my end . Stuff slow and acting weirdly. Could be coindence but am logging out for safety for now.
  14. I dont think I posted that twice (deliberately). But let's see
  15. I just thought it was worth sticking a new today's news as I always get the feeling I'm being distracted and I like to pay attention to as many things as possible.
  16. I just thought it was worth sticking a new today's news as I always get the feeling I'm being distracted and I like to pay attention to as many things as possible.
  17. My husband asked me this though last night when I was talking to gareth because of the password access attempts. He wanted to know how I knew it was actually gareth Icke I was talking too and not some mirror page. And they have the cheek to call me the conspiracy theorist ! :-)
  18. I'm pretty sure this was asked on the 'proper forum and @ink answered that the DI page and the forum are separate hosts. Also the tweet from David Icke's account says that DI people deliberately took down the main page (not forum) as a defence tactic.
  19. They definitely tried to access via my account and definitely did not guess my password as DI forum protocols kicked in and locked my account. The access was coming from London. But that could just be where the hub server was pinging from. I'm not massively tech savvy. HOWEVER I have changed all home passwords linked to my email.
  20. Agreed not is the term adderall that's a US term
  21. Sensible article in the Sunday Times questioning lockdown and Neil Ferguson The lesson of Covid-19 is brutally simple and applies generally to public regulation. Free people make mistakes and willingly take risks. If we hold politicians responsible for everything that goes wrong, they will take away our liberty so that nothing can go wrong. They will do this not for our protection against risk, but for their own protection against criticism. The lockdown was originally justified as a temporary measure to spread coronavirus infections over a longer period. This was to allow time for the NHS’s critical care capacity to catch up. Hence the slogan “Protect the NHS”. It was never much of a rationale. The NHS is there to protect us, not the other way round. How could its unpreparedness possibly justify depriving the entire UK population of its liberty, pushing us into the worst recession since the early 18th century, destroying millions of jobs and hundreds of thousands of businesses, piling up public and private debt on a crippling scale and undermining the education of our children? Since the prime minister’s broadcast last Sunday, the lockdown has found a new rationale. The government has dropped “Protect the NHS” from its slogan. The reason is plain from the paper it published the following day. The NHS is not at risk. This is partly because the government has done an outstanding job in increasing intensive care capacity, and partly because the threat to the NHS was always overstated. The critical care capacity of the NHS has nearly doubled since January, even without the 4,000 or more additional beds in seven temporary Nightingale hospitals. Around the top of the spike in infections, on April 10, 41% of NHS general acute beds were empty. Only 51% of acute beds were occupied by a Covid-19 patient. The current figure is 20%. The Nightingale hospitals stand empty. These are government figures. Today, the lockdown is only about shielding us from the risk of infection. This raises serious questions about our relationship with the state. It is our business, not the state’s, to say what risks we will take with our own health. We are not fools or children needing to be told by ministers what is good for us, and forced by police officers to do it. We should not need to consult ministers, as the first member of the public to phone in to the daily press conference did, about whether she was allowed to hug her grandchildren. The usual answer is that by going out and about we may infect other people. But that no longer works as an excuse for coercion. Those who do not want to run the risk of being infected can isolate themselves voluntarily. They will be no worse off than they are under the current compulsory regime. The rest of us can then get on with our lives. The continuance of the lockdown is particularly odd given that in its latest paper the government accepts that, whatever we do, Covid-19 is likely to be with us long term. So unless it plans to keep the lockdown in place for ever, all that it achieves is to put off the moment when we have to face the risk anyway. The prime minister told the House of Commons on Monday that his new so-called plan was workable because the British would use their common sense. In that case, why not allow them to do so by leaving the decisions to them? Instead, we are resorting to law, which, because it requires exact definition, will always cover very many things that are perfectly harmless. Thus it was OK to go for a walk in the park but not to sunbathe. It is OK to drive to the Lake District but not to visit your second home. It is OK to meet one person but not two, and OK to do it in the front garden but not in the back. This kind of thing is arbitrary and absurd. It discredits the law as well as those who make it. So how has the government ended up in this unsustainable position? The answer is that, having originally embarked on a sensible policy that would have avoided a lockdown, it did a 180-degree turn on the afternoon of March 23, without thinking of the wider implications. It was in a blind panic provoked by Professor Neil Ferguson’s “reasonable worst case” of 510,000 deaths. Quite apart from the fact that a worst case is by definition an unlikely one, few scientists now support this figure. But it has had disastrous consequences. It pushed the government into making a decision that mocks our humanity and treats us all as mere tools of government policy. The government terrified people into submission by giving the impression that Covid-19 was dangerous for everyone. It is not. It attacks people with serious vulnerabilities. By most estimates, between 0.5% and 0.75% of infected persons die. Of those, 87% are over 65 and at least 90% have multiple causes only one of which is Covid-19, according to the Office for National Statistics. The death rate for those under 50 is tiny. For the overwhelming majority, the symptoms are mild. Yet Matt Hancock solemnly intoned that “if you go out, people will die”, in what was surely the high point of governmental hype. The prime minister’s broadcast was supposed to be his Churchillian moment. Instead, we beheld a man imprisoned by his own rhetoric and the logic of his past mistakes. The lockdown is now all about protecting politicians’ backs. They are not wicked men, just timid ones, terrified of being blamed for deaths on their watch. But it is a wicked thing that they are doing. Lord Sumption is a former Supreme Court judge and last year’s BBC Reith
  22. Chinese ambassador to Israel found dead at home, says Israeli foreign ministry Du Wei was appointed envoy in February in the midst of the coronavirus pandemic and previously served as China's envoy to Ukraine.The ambassador's death comes just two days after he condemned comments by visiting US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who denounced Chinese investments in Israel and accused China of hiding information about the COVID-19 outbreak.Israel's Channel 12 TV, quoting unidentified emergency medical officials, said initial indications were that Du died in his sleep of natural causes.
  23. And I'm still limited on likes:-)
  24. This on Twitter from David Icke' s account. Sorry had to spell out the domain to post TERRIFIED OF DAVID ICKE: We have taken down David Icke dotcom overnight amid a serious denial of service attack. Judging by some of the 'hacker's' language involved and the horrible description of an Arab man we have a good idea where it is coming from.
×
×
  • Create New...