DarianF Posted January 4, 2021 Share Posted January 4, 2021 51 minutes ago, Brad the lad said: Sounds like you've lost your Wingwang to me mate. You dodged a bullet with this whack job. Now go have a pint and rub one out. Be grateful. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wingwang Posted January 4, 2021 Share Posted January 4, 2021 Sorry to get all Mumsnet... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarianF Posted January 4, 2021 Share Posted January 4, 2021 2 minutes ago, wingwang said: Sorry to get all Mumsnet... We've all been there. No need to apologise 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubsandwich Posted January 4, 2021 Share Posted January 4, 2021 1 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitochondrial Eve Posted January 4, 2021 Share Posted January 4, 2021 The University of Witten/Herdecke in Germany has set up a registry for parents and professionals to report any observations regarding the effects of face coverings on children. Entries have been received concerning 25,930 children. It is a pre-print so has not been peer-reviewed yet. But the results are concerning and far from surprising. https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-124394/v1 https://assets.researchsquare.com/files/rs-124394/v1/a32c0557-f7bc-40dd-812b-c6b6c9b9636e.pdf Quote Results: By 26.10.2020 the registry had been used by 20,353 people. In this publication we report the results from the parents, who entered data on a total of 25,930 children. The average wearing time of the mask was 270 minutes per day. Impairments caused by wearing the mask were reported by 68% of the parents. These included irritability (60%), headache (53%), difficulty concentrating (50%), less happiness (49%), reluctance to go to school/kindergarten (44%), malaise (42%) impaired learning (38%) and drowsiness or fatigue (37%). 5 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Macnamara Posted January 4, 2021 Share Posted January 4, 2021 On 1/3/2021 at 11:43 PM, wingwang said: Had a date today. Worked with her for about a month pre-lockdown so we are not strangers. Same interests, chemistry, sexual tension, yada, yada, yada... when i first read that i read it as you saying that your interests were chemistry and sexual tension.... i was like 'ok fair enough...' 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Macnamara Posted January 4, 2021 Share Posted January 4, 2021 On 1/3/2021 at 8:03 PM, Mr H said: From the BBC today, nearly made me vomit. like david says its satanic inversion. In the reality they create the real heroes are villainised and marginalised 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pia brynteson Posted January 7, 2021 Share Posted January 7, 2021 (edited) Hi all, I am a student at Central Saint Martins studying Journalism. I am currently researching for a piece on the different theories surrounding the Coronavirus. I would love to learn more about the different ideas and opinions. If you are interested in talking to me, please email me on *redacted by moderator*, I would really appreciate it. Many thanks and hope to hear from you. Best, Pia Edited January 9, 2021 by Grumpy Owl Please do not post contact details publicly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sickofallthebollocks Posted January 11, 2021 Share Posted January 11, 2021 (edited) A good 'normal' person voicing her dismay at the whole mask debarcle with (imo) honesty & composure when dealing with the many wanton misguided 'fellow' humans out there. It's getting worse round here in the UK, fucking dickheads towing the line, signs now in shop entrances saying: 'If you are not wearing a mask and are exempt, we will bring your shopping out to you' 'No mask - no service' 'if you are exempt please wear your lanyard, otherwise please wear a mask' etc etc... They are fucking doomed. Edited January 11, 2021 by sickofallthebollocks spelling 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr H Posted January 11, 2021 Share Posted January 11, 2021 You have to think if everything the gov said is true about this pandemic, then why wouldn't they do what they did in the 2nd world war and evacuate the vulnerable? Currently, you have 99.9% unaffected, 0.1% effected by the virus (according to them).So why lock up everybody? People who have pre-existing conditions know who they are and anyone who suspects they have one should also follow. Then you would let the economy and every other function as normal until you vaccinate or whatever you want to do to the 0.1%..... You would also be able to target all covid resources to the evacuation area. But this wasn't even on the table....... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad the lad Posted January 11, 2021 Share Posted January 11, 2021 Just wanted to share this- The importance of the word 'person' is huge in every legal sense. Every legal document you own will refer to you as the person. You will never be refered to as a man/woman. Anyone who has a concept of natural law will know that this because when refered to as a person it is your legal fiction, artificial or all round corporate bollocks. For those not aware of the word person and what it represents then It basicaly allows them to enslave you 'legally'. The word person derives from persona in Latin. Blow me down it realtes to mask wearing. I kid you not........ In ancient Rome, the word persona (Latin) or prosopon (πρόσωπον; Greek) originally referred to the masks worn by actors on stage. ... The philosophical concept of person arose, taking the word "prosopon" (Ancient Greek: πρόσωπον, romanized: prósōpon) from the Greek theatre. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sickofallthebollocks Posted January 12, 2021 Share Posted January 12, 2021 Not sure about the accuracy of the history, but like the message: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sickofallthebollocks Posted January 12, 2021 Share Posted January 12, 2021 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Connor Posted January 13, 2021 Share Posted January 13, 2021 I think most of the population has a panty sniffing fetish. It looks like people are wearing their underwear on their face. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitochondrial Eve Posted January 13, 2021 Share Posted January 13, 2021 The images below are from the UK Government's guidance to supermarkets following calls for them to become stricter against non-mask wearers. The guidance and law, however, remains unchanged and the supermarkets (and police) still lack teeth to enforce the measures. This would be why the fear is being ramped up instead in the MSM - because there is literally nothing they can (legally) do should somebody say they are exempt. Non-mask wearers should not be asked why they are exempt or to produce evidence of exemption or wear a lanyard. Entry should not be denied. https://www.frylaw.co.uk/archives/articles/face-masks-the-definitive-guidance/ 1 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grumpy Owl Posted January 14, 2021 Share Posted January 14, 2021 On 1/13/2021 at 7:02 PM, Mitochondrial Eve said: The images below are from the UK Government's guidance to supermarkets following calls for them to become stricter against non-mask wearers. The guidance and law, however, remains unchanged and the supermarkets (and police) still lack teeth to enforce the measures. This would be why the fear is being ramped up instead in the MSM - because there is literally nothing they can (legally) do should somebody say they are exempt. Non-mask wearers should not be asked why they are exempt or to produce evidence of exemption or wear a lanyard. Entry should not be denied. https://www.frylaw.co.uk/archives/articles/face-masks-the-definitive-guidance/ The "calls" for the guidance to become stricter are only coming from the media reporting on the 'chatter' from social media. Its all part of the psychological warfare being waged against the general populace via the 77th Brigade mob, in order to pressure or 'bully' more and more people to force themselves to wear these silly face coverings and masks against their will. Or "the sheep shepherding themselves"... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitochondrial Eve Posted January 16, 2021 Share Posted January 16, 2021 This was sent my way last night - it is a little over a month old (8th December 2020) but I don't think it's been posted yet. A disabled woman has been paid £7,000 in compensation by a service provider who refused her access because she couldn't wear a face mask. The claim was settled outside of court. https://disabilityrights.org.uk/first-face-mask-discrimination-case-nets-7-000 Quote First face mask discrimination case nets £7,000 A disabled woman assisted by Kester Disability Rights has been paid £7,000 in compensation by a service provider who refused her access to a service because she was unable to wear a face mask. The pay-out was achieved through negotiation as there was no dispute that access had been denied, or that the Claimant had a disability exemption. The only thing to be agreed was the amount of compensation, not whether it was due or not. Refusing access to people unable to wear face coverings due to disability is direct discimination - no different to denying access to a black or gay person for example. Disabled people are now routinely harassed in public for not wearing face coverings - frequently given the impression that confidential medical information must be publicly disclosed to justify exemption. The fact that shops and hospitality businesses routinely display "no mask no entry" signs shows how deeply disablist attitudes are embedded in society. If premises displayed "no blacks" or "no gays" notices there would be outrage. Fortunately the official Government position does not endorse any of this as nobody exempt from wearing a mask is expected to go around justifying themselves. Saying "I'm exempt" is enough. If the response to that can be proved to be discriminatory then compensation is due. 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnarchicBreeze Posted January 16, 2021 Share Posted January 16, 2021 On 1/14/2021 at 8:36 PM, Grumpy Owl said: The "calls" for the guidance to become stricter are only coming from the media reporting on the 'chatter' from social media. Its all part of the psychological warfare being waged against the general populace via the 77th Brigade mob, in order to pressure or 'bully' more and more people to force themselves to wear these silly face coverings and masks against their will. Or "the sheep shepherding themselves"... The willingness to mask up, to stay away from others, to isolate and imprison oneself at home, to have a very suspect and utterly untested jab is not adherence to a scientific approach to combatting a deadly virus. It is a quasi-religious mechanism to gauge how compliant people are to the imposition of a totalitarian police state. Those who do not comply (and who are consequently potential dissenting troublemakers) are easily identifiable by their lack of compliance. That the 24/7 media hysteria and the government's massively disproportionate over reaction are so extreme serves to generate a clear and pronounced polarisation between the timid believers and those who know they are being played. Crackdowns on and round ups of dissenters will follow soon and they will be described as covid transmission risks and interned in prison camps, ostensibly for the protection of others. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grumpy Owl Posted January 16, 2021 Share Posted January 16, 2021 So for the last six months or so, I've been travelling on buses, mostly just to and from work to be honest, not wearing a face covering, and all of the drivers at my local depot never say anything to me, though I do have a printed-off exemption card from TfWM (Transport For West Midlands) which I keep in my travelcard wallet alongside my SWIFT smartcard, so it is visible when I scan my pass. There is one driver who is a bit of a jobsworth though, and I have encountered him before and he usually mutters something about 'wear a mask next time please'. Yesterday evening, he was driving the bus I was getting home, and as I boarded he openly asked me 'do you have an exemption?' Luckily I had my wits about me and kept my cool, after my pass had registered on the scanner, I simply responded 'yes', and presented my exemption card directly at him. It took a couple of seconds to register before he acknowledged it with an "ah okay then". It actually felt a little intimidating, and part of me was hoping that he would refuse me entry, so I could then make a complaint to National Express West Midlands. But then again, part of me thought 'fair play' at least he's actually doing what he can to 'enforce the rules', though there probably would have been a fat lot of good he could do if I had simply just walked on without responding. The irony was that he was sitting there behind his plastic screen with the ventilation holes shrink-wrapped over and not wearing a mask himself. The other irony was that there were already five other passengers on the bus, two of whom were not wearing masks either. I'm just grateful I suppose that this one particular driver is the exception rather than the 'norm', and the rest of the drivers here just do what they are paid to do, that is drive the bloody bus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kestrel Posted January 16, 2021 Share Posted January 16, 2021 (edited) o If you state you are exempt, and still ask you wear a face mask, then they are in breach of section 29 (a) of the equalities act 2010. o If you are exempt and they deny you entry (even without a service or sale even taking place or not), they are in breach of section 29 (b) of the equalities act. o If you state you are exempt and they ask why you are exempt, that is in breach of section 29 (c) of the equalities act section 29. Source: https://brandnewtube.com/watch/its-illegal-to-force-you-to-wear-a-face-mask_L7xfthPV8MwmPMW.html Film all evidence. If they are in breach of sections a,b, or c of the equalities act 2010 they are sustainable to £5,000 fine in a court of law. Finally, here is section 29 of the equalities act 2010 which lists "provision of services" reiterated here word-for-word. Use your power to destroy all establishments and places of business whom disciminate against those with disabilities and bring them to justice. Section 29 Provision of services, etc. (1)A person (a “service-provider”) concerned with the provision of a service to the public or a section of the public (for payment or not) must not discriminate against a person requiring the service by not providing the person with the service. (2)A service-provider (A) must not, in providing the service, discriminate against a person (B)— (a)as to the terms on which A provides the service to B; (b)by terminating the provision of the service to B; (c)by subjecting B to any other detriment. (3)A service-provider must not, in relation to the provision of the service, harass— (a)a person requiring the service, or (b)a person to whom the service-provider provides the service. (4)A service-provider must not victimise a person requiring the service by not providing the person with the service. (5)A service-provider (A) must not, in providing the service, victimise a person (B)— (a)as to the terms on which A provides the service to B; (b)by terminating the provision of the service to B; (c)by subjecting B to any other detriment. (6)A person must not, in the exercise of a public function that is not the provision of a service to the public or a section of the public, do anything that constitutes discrimination, harassment or victimisation. (7)A duty to make reasonable adjustments applies to— (a)a service-provider (and see also section 55(7)); (b)a person who exercises a public function that is not the provision of a service to the public or a section of the public. (8)In the application of section 26 for the purposes of subsection (3), and subsection (6) as it relates to harassment, neither of the following is a relevant protected characteristic— (a)religion or belief; (b)sexual orientation. (9)In the application of this section, so far as relating to race or religion or belief, to the granting of entry clearance (within the meaning of the Immigration Act 1971), it does not matter whether an act is done within or outside the United Kingdom. (10)Subsection (9) does not affect the application of any other provision of this Act to conduct outside England and Wales or Scotland. Edited January 16, 2021 by kestrel 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gone Fishing... Posted January 18, 2021 Share Posted January 18, 2021 I don't like Rebel News but this woman's 'mask case' is important: Jeyseh1A-5w Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sickofallthebollocks Posted January 18, 2021 Share Posted January 18, 2021 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sickofallthebollocks Posted January 18, 2021 Share Posted January 18, 2021 (edited) Mask wearing film crew filming on a public street ask why charlie is filming them? ....on a public street? Highlight for me (at 5:30) is when the souless eyed gimp,says that awful phrase that 'some' non-genuine people in the UK have chosen to say far too often, which is: "have a nice day" Charles reply: "no, you don't have a nice day you twat" Edited January 18, 2021 by sickofallthebollocks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ziggy Sawdust Posted January 19, 2021 Share Posted January 19, 2021 22 hours ago, sickofallthebollocks said: Mask wearing film crew filming on a public street ask why charlie is filming them? ....on a public street? Highlight for me (at 5:30) is when the souless eyed gimp,says that awful phrase that 'some' non-genuine people in the UK have chosen to say far too often, which is: "have a nice day" Charles reply: "no, you don't have a nice day you twat" Could have been worse.....he might have said "Stay safe" I've already told at least half a dozen people how ridiculous they sound when they say it. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad the lad Posted January 19, 2021 Share Posted January 19, 2021 7 hours ago, Ziggy Sawdust said: Could have been worse.....he might have said "Stay safe" I've already told at least half a dozen people how ridiculous they sound when they say it. When someone says..."Stay safe" then you should always follow it by saying "Don't go changing now". You must not forget to wink and point your finger at them at the same time of course. I hate it when people say it to me as well. It reminds me of Hill Street Blues........... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.jpg.8081a54a3b74a5d1823dfac966666137.jpg)
.jpg.594f0ef23288ec5ab04539b2f8a8dbd4.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.