CV19 - Cure Worse Than The Disease? (Vol 19)

[Roderick Spode]

Boringvolvodriver said:

Elysium said:

Hants PHer said:

James6112 said:

So when you get pulled up for driving to a park for a run (I pushed it but just about passed the attitude test)

How are you going to not comply, if there is another global pandemic?

Walk the wrong in Tesco?
Go for 2 walks a day?
Have a party!

Just interested how the free thinkers would non-comply!

Well, remember that guidance and legislation were separate things. For example, driving to a park, the arrows on Tesco's floor and the 2 walks a day were never part of legislation (in England at least), whereas the 'having a party for non-household members' was.

My own view was as follows: 1) ignore guidance, but 2) be polite at all times and 3) obey the legislation. Not sure if that makes me a 'free thinker', whatever that might be.

I am proud to say that I broke the law many times.

Was it ever “law” though? There was so much that was guidance but badged as law. The legislation, such as it was, was so badly written that even the government didn’t understand it and the police certainly didn’t.

I would challenge James6112 and anyone else to say that they stuck to the rules fully and never strayed outside them.

My experience is that after the initial panic had died down, people were somewhat flexible with their interpretation despite shouting down those of us who were more visibly breaking the “law”.

It always makes me when I see the obligingly and unquestioningly compliant proudly announcing that they meekly complied with every insane diktat and ever-changing piece of performative pantomime nonsense handed down from our rulers on high, with scant regard for reason, common sense, or scientific justification, and having the temerity to criticise those who questioned any of it.

Imagine looking at this lot and thinking you're the clever one for blindly obeying it all

"Stand two metres apart, and follow the one way system."
"Why?"
"Because the virus magically falls to the ground at a distance of 1.99m, and gets confused when asked to move bi-directionally."

"Cover your face with any old rag you happen to have lying around the house. A t-shirt will do."
"Why?"
"Because a virus with an approximate size of 0.1 microns will be thwarted by a fabric weave with a spacing of 500 microns."

"You must wear a face covering when entering a shop, bar or restaurant. But you may remove it when seated."
"Why?"
"Because the virus thrives in enclosed spaces where people congregate. However, it only exists above a height of five feet."

"Gyms, swimming pools, leisure centres and health clubs are all closed, but takeaways & pubs will remain open."
"Why?"
"In the interests of public health."

"You must sit in your home in the middle of winter with all the doors and windows open, for the purposes of ventilation."
"Why?"
"To protect the health and well-being of vulnerable pensioners."

"You may not comfort your fellow grieving mourners at a family funeral."
"Why?"
"To ensure your physical and mental health."

"You may take one hour of outdoor exercise once a day, at a distance no greater than five miles from your home."
"Why?"
"Erm, give us a minute, we'll think of something..."

[Hants PHer]

Boringvolvodriver said:

Was it ever “law” though? There was so much that was guidance but badged as law. The legislation, such as it was, was so badly written that even the government didn’t understand it and the police certainly didn’t.

I would challenge James6112 and anyone else to say that they stuck to the rules fully and never strayed outside them.

My experience is that after the initial panic had died down, people were somewhat flexible with their interpretation despite shouting down those of us who were more visibly breaking the “law”.

I remain of the view that the confusion between law and guidance was something that governments (not just England, but Kim Jong Drakeford and the Chief Mammy too) were rather happy with. As were the police, I think, since it allowed officers to do what they wanted: "Sorry Sir, you may not sit on this park bench, it's against the rules." "Pardon me? What law am I breaking exactly?" "Move along now Sir, don't be difficult."

Note the use of the word "rules". Are rules law or are they guidance? Don't suppose it matters when some copper is telling you to move along........

As you say, it all got a bit lax after a while, but I certainly recall one or two zealots on our local Facebook page who demanded that everyone "follow the rules", be they law or guidance. IIRC there were one or two posters on here who shared that mentality.

[r3g]

Roderick Spode said:

It always makes me when I see the obligingly and unquestioningly compliant proudly announcing that they meekly complied with every insane diktat and ever-changing piece of performative pantomime nonsense handed down from our rulers on high, with scant regard for reason, common sense, or scientific justification, and having the temerity to criticise those who questioned any of it.

Imagine looking at this lot and thinking you're the clever one for blindly obeying it all

"Stand two metres apart, and follow the one way system."
"Why?"
"Because the virus magically falls to the ground at a distance of 1.99m, and gets confused when asked to move bi-directionally."

"Cover your face with any old rag you happen to have lying around the house. A t-shirt will do."
"Why?"
"Because a virus with an approximate size of 0.1 microns will be thwarted by a fabric weave with a spacing of 500 microns."

"You must wear a face covering when entering a shop, bar or restaurant. But you may remove it when seated."
"Why?"
"Because the virus thrives in enclosed spaces where people congregate. However, it only exists above a height of five feet."

"Gyms, swimming pools, leisure centres and health clubs are all closed, but takeaways & pubs will remain open."
"Why?"
"In the interests of public health."

"You must sit in your home in the middle of winter with all the doors and windows open, for the purposes of ventilation."
"Why?"
"To protect the health and well-being of vulnerable pensioners."

"You may not comfort your fellow grieving mourners at a family funeral."
"Why?"
"To ensure your physical and mental health."

"You may take one hour of outdoor exercise once a day, at a distance no greater than five miles from your home."
"Why?"
"Erm, give us a minute, we'll think of something..."

Very well said Rodders. Echoes my thoughts perfectly.

I'm just wondering where the line in the sand would have been for the "just obeying the legislation" Big Daddy Government fanboys like Hants PHer above. I mean, we already witnessed the theatre of the mask nonsense in restaurants and pubs where The Science™ said The Deadly Virus would only get you if you were walking to the bar, or the toilet, but you were completely safe from it so long as you were sat down, and they all obediently went along with it.

Would these same people also have bent over and slipped down their underwear to be anal swabbed for The Deadly Virus as per what happened in China? If The Science™ had fabricated some scary looking graphs and wheeled out some doctors from the WHOs payroll to say that everyone needed their faecal matter testing to help stop the spread and it's for the greater good, how many would have complied? I'm willing to bet with enough screen time by the BBC and footage of hospital stage sets showing bodies piled up in the corridors, the vast majority of people would have done it. Critical thought process for these people = 0.

[Hants PHer]

For the avoidance of doubt, and to correct r3g's unhinged misconceptions, I can confirm that I never once wore a face covering, and I never would. The law, remember, allowed for exemptions from so doing.

I think it's an interesting question to consider: when is it OK to break the law? On the one hand, one might take the view that a law is unjust and it's OK to break it. Then again, that is a subjective line to cross. I might believe that a 20 mph limit on a stretch of road is ridiculous, but is it acceptable to drive faster than that speed? Many drivers seem to think it's fine to use a mobile phone while driving whilst others disagree. And so on.

When one starts labelling those who abide by laws as "government fan boys", one could be accused of shallow and simplistic thinking. Or perhaps even that one is someone who posts nonsense and with whom engagement is best avoided. You know what they say about arguing with a fool on the internet, after all.

[Timothy Bucktu]

James6112 said:

jshell said:

RSTurboPaul said:

Unreal said:

In case you wanted to know how they all voted:

https://votes.parliament.uk/Votes/Commons/Division...

150 Labour votes, of which 8 were Noes.

One might not feel confident of much pushback in the future if a red party is in power when 'the next pandemic' arrives.

Yes: 'when'. But, non-compliance is the key and our only power against it.

So when you get pulled up for driving to a park for a run (I pushed it but just about passed the attitude test)

How are you going to not comply, if there is another global pandemic?

Walk the wrong in Tesco?
Go for 2 walks a day?
Have a party!

Just interested how the free thinkers would non-comply!

Yep...Just carry on mostly as normal - just like a few of us on this forum did.

[isaldiri]

Hants PHer said:

I think it's an interesting question to consider: when is it OK to break the law? On the one hand, one might take the view that a law is unjust and it's OK to break it. Then again, that is a subjective line to cross. I might believe that a 20 mph limit on a stretch of road is ridiculous, but is it acceptable to drive faster than that speed? Many drivers seem to think it's fine to use a mobile phone while driving whilst others disagree. And so on.

That's an interesting one oa societal level - I suppose it's a combination of what's deemed 'acceptable' by enough people such that people don't quite feel the constraint of having to scrupulously abide by that rule because it's considered inane/pointless/unnecessary and how zealous enforcement is. The latter of course also is at least partially driven by the former because the people doing said policing of 'the rules' are far more empowered to do so when there is the perception of society being on 'their' side to force people to comply.

Which of course was at least in part how the government so effectively managed to stir up resentment against the 'bad' rule breakers/lockdown deniers/anti vaxxers as a way of exploiting human nature in resenting that 'others' were perceived to have got away with something they did not themselves as a way of increasing that societal pressure on compliance.

[Hants PHer]

isaldiri said:

That's an interesting one oa societal level - I suppose it's a combination of what's deemed 'acceptable' by enough people such that people don't quite feel the constraint of having to scrupulously abide by that rule because it's considered inane/pointless/unnecessary and how zealous enforcement is. The latter of course also is at least partially driven by the former because the people doing said policing of 'the rules' are far more empowered to do so when there is the perception of society being on 'their' side to force people to comply.

Which of course was at least in part how the government so effectively managed to stir up resentment against the 'bad' rule breakers/lockdown deniers/anti vaxxers as a way of exploiting human nature in resenting that 'others' were perceived to have got away with something they did not themselves as a way of increasing that societal pressure on compliance.

That's a good point (my bold) and, as you say, was very obvious during lockdown(s). There must have been some curtain twitchers reporting their neighbours for having an illegal gathering, and saying to themselves "Well, we don't break the rules so I don't see why they should get away with it".

I wonder what I'd have done if the face covering law had, hypothetically, not included the exemptions that it did. I honestly don't know. I suppose, as you note, it might depend on how strongly other people felt about mask wearing, and the degree of enforcement. If every other person in Tesco was masked up, and there was a burly security guard at the entrance, growling "Sir, no entry without a face mask, no exceptions, it's the law" then I'd probably have given up I think (i.e. gone home and got shopping delivered).

Who knows, perhaps next time there's a pandemic I'll find out!

[The Selfish Gene]

Timothy Bucktu said:

Yep...Just carry on mostly as normal - just like a few of us on this forum did.

I didn't just carry on as normal - I made a point of doing the absolute opposite of what I was told to do.

I can't fathom how ordinarily intelligent people listened to the rules, the fake panic and the embarrassing lies and complied with any of it.

It was clearly complete bks from day 1

[Elysium]

Hants PHer said:

Boringvolvodriver said:

Was it ever “law” though? There was so much that was guidance but badged as law. The legislation, such as it was, was so badly written that even the government didn’t understand it and the police certainly didn’t.

I would challenge James6112 and anyone else to say that they stuck to the rules fully and never strayed outside them.

My experience is that after the initial panic had died down, people were somewhat flexible with their interpretation despite shouting down those of us who were more visibly breaking the “law”.

I remain of the view that the confusion between law and guidance was something that governments (not just England, but Kim Jong Drakeford and the Chief Mammy too) were rather happy with. As were the police, I think, since it allowed officers to do what they wanted: "Sorry Sir, you may not sit on this park bench, it's against the rules." "Pardon me? What law am I breaking exactly?" "Move along now Sir, don't be difficult."

Note the use of the word "rules". Are rules law or are they guidance? Don't suppose it matters when some copper is telling you to move along........

As you say, it all got a bit lax after a while, but I certainly recall one or two zealots on our local Facebook page who demanded that everyone "follow the rules", be they law or guidance. IIRC there were one or two posters on here who shared that mentality.

I agree that there was a lot of confusion between guidance and law. At times that confusion seemed to have been deliberately created by the Govt.

Of course zealots tried to enforce guidance. But they also enforced actual laws, that were passed by Matt Hancock alone, with a swipe of the pen like some sort of feudal king.

Once again I would urge people to read Sumption’s lecture on this:

https://hilarywhitehead.com/wp-content/uploads/202...

Lord Sumption said:

During the Covid-19 pandemic, the British state has exercised coercive powers over its citizens on a scale never previously attempted. It has taken effective legal control, enforced by the police, over the personal lives of the entire population: where they could go, whom they could meet, what they could do even within their own homes. For three months it placed everybody under a form of house arrest, qualified only by their right to do a limited number of things approved by ministers. All of this has been authorised by ministerial decree with minimal Parliamentary involvement. It has been the most significant interference with personal freedom in the history of our country. We have never sought to do such a thing before, even in wartime and even when faced with health crises far more serious than this one

What we now know if that the very people who wrote these laws habitually broke them. Including Hancock.

They made a mockery of our democracy and our freedoms.

[Ari]

Roderick Spode said:

"You may take one hour of outdoor exercise once a day, at a distance no greater than five miles from your home."
"Why?"
"Erm, give us a minute, we'll think of something..."

People still trot out this imagined one hour of exercise thing like it was real, don't they?

[RSTurboPaul]

Ari said:

Roderick Spode said:

"You may take one hour of outdoor exercise once a day, at a distance no greater than five miles from your home."
"Why?"
"Erm, give us a minute, we'll think of something..."

People still trot out this imagined one hour of exercise thing like it was real, don't they?

I think the underlying point is that the wider populace did not all come to that belief simultaneously of their own accord - they were fed that 'guidance' as if it were 'the law' via Government messaging that deliberately conflated the two and obfuscated the reality of the situation in order to seek to create maximum compliance with executive diktat, as per Elysium's post.

Those that did actually read 'the law' and understand the situation legally, including in terms of mask 'exemption', were roundly criticised and ostracised by the large majority who only went off what they were told via legacy media and parroted carefully crafted messaging - 'doing your own research' being mocked and condemned (even now), yet actually leading to those who did so being accurately informed.

Having a reasoned discussion around such things was effectively made impossible due to the 'public shaming' of those not abiding by 'the rules' - the minutes of the Nudge Unit meetings noting that being seen to do 'the right thing' is a strong influence in the public's decision-making in the court of public opinion - and short snappy catchphrases like 'hands, face, space' were the easily-recalled tools to shut down debate.

I (unmasked) recall being told by a masked-up 20-something working in a Tesco corner shop that 'people like you are the reason we are in this situation'. Sadly he was incorrect, as those who 'did your own research' were sure of at the time and were subsequently shown to be correct, but his belief in 'doing the right thing' (and that he was at risk) was strong enough that he felt able/compelled to exhibit judgement openly in a public setting.

Edited by RSTurboPaul on Wednesday 29th May 18:07

[Boringvolvodriver]

As Elysium says

“They made a mockery of our democracy and our freedoms.”

Indeed they did and they were aided and abetted by the media both legacy and social. The level of censorship was concerning as evidenced by, albeit for a short while, Google not bringing up the Great Barrington Declaration in searches.

I have lost an awful lot of trust (and I was always cynical before) during the pandemic including my previous belief that the general population can see through BS dictates from governments. I have said it before but I was surprised, and not in a good way, at how many people who prior to covid said that they didn’t trust politicians suddenly hung on there every word and did as they were told without question.

A real life Milgram experiment aptly demonstrated on Thursdays at 8pm!

ETA - or even this one

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qj5I0VsADS4

Edited by Boringvolvodriver on Wednesday 29th May 19:39

[Roderick Spode]

Boringvolvodriver said:

I have said it before but I was surprised, and not in a good way, at how many people who prior to covid said that they didn’t trust politicians suddenly hung on there every word and did as they were told without question.

This was one of the most surprising things for me. I have a friend who is fairly out there on the conspiracy spectrum - everything that happens is a plot from some nefarious international cabal, nobody is operating with our best intentions at heart, all our online interactions are monitored and vetted by the CIA/MI5/Mossad agents - in other words deeply cynical about anything at all to do with officialdom. And yet, when Covid came along with it's myriad restrictions & crazy diktats, he was a fully paid-up member of the 'mask everywhere' and 'jab everything' club, obediently adhering to whatever baleful nonsense was spouted by Fishface Sturgeon on the fool's lantern. I couldn't quite square that circle, and there was no chance of rational discussion about it.

[jshell]

Hants PHer said:

James6112 said:

So when you get pulled up for driving to a park for a run (I pushed it but just about passed the attitude test)

How are you going to not comply, if there is another global pandemic?

Walk the wrong in Tesco?
Go for 2 walks a day?
Have a party!

Just interested how the free thinkers would non-comply!

Well, remember that guidance and legislation were separate things. For example, driving to a park, the arrows on Tesco's floor and the 2 walks a day were never part of legislation (in England at least), whereas the 'having a party for non-household members' was.

My own view was as follows: 1) ignore guidance, but 2) be polite at all times and 3) obey the legislation. Not sure if that makes me a 'free thinker', whatever that might be.

I'm in agreement with this!

[jshell]

Oh, look, 2021 deaths in the vaxxed classed as unvaxxed by the ONS. I don't think people realise how many individuals and organisations out there are still poring over the data of the past few years!

https://wherearethenumbers.substack.com/p/we-were-...

[Boringvolvodriver]

jshell said:

Oh, look, 2021 deaths in the vaxxed classed as unvaxxed by the ONS. I don't think people realise how many individuals and organisations out there are still poring over the data of the past few years!

https://wherearethenumbers.substack.com/p/we-were-...

The issue for me is that very few people will hear about this since it will not be covered by media. And even it were to be, very few would actually believe it, it would be another conspiracy theory.

As someone once said

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

[jameswills]

Everything we get fed is lies. It’s a sad realisation yes, but once you break free of this, honestly you’ll feel a lot better! Trust your own instinct.

[r3g]

jameswills said:

Everything we get fed is lies. It’s a sad realisation yes, but once you break free of this, honestly you’ll feel a lot better! Trust your own instinct.

“You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inert, so hopelessly dependent on the system that they will fight to protect it.”

[grumbledoak]

jshell said:

Oh, look, 2021 deaths in the vaxxed classed as unvaxxed by the ONS. I don't think people realise how many individuals and organisations out there are still poring over the data of the past few years!

https://wherearethenumbers.substack.com/p/we-were-...

Oh we are surprised.

Lies, lies, and government statistics.

and well done Clare Craig.

[r3g]

grumbledoak said:

jshell said:

Oh, look, 2021 deaths in the vaxxed classed as unvaxxed by the ONS. I don't think people realise how many individuals and organisations out there are still poring over the data of the past few years!

https://wherearethenumbers.substack.com/p/we-were-...

Oh we are surprised.

Lies, lies, and government statistics.

and well done Clare Craig.

Funny, gone strangely quiet from the usual suspects, "unhinged" Hants PHer, Elysium and Isaldiri, to name a few. I wonder what excuse they'll concoct this time to defend their beloved ONS "official" figures Or maybe they'll finally MTFU and agree with what myself, James and a few others have been saying consistently for the past couple of years, that the "official" figures are completely fabricated horsest that were done for no other reason than to instill fear into the population and force compliance with their pointless diktats and mask theatre. Nope.. didn't think so - the ONS statistics are sacrosanct and can never be questioned. Silly me. Just keep peddling the same Deadly Virus narrative and desperately try to find some minor detail in the report to smear the author.