Search results

Um... 1437344371838496769

Meanwhile, in related news…

Big fan of the Government which is trying to make voters show ID before voting now halting vaccine passports because they don't want people to have to carry around documentation to prove things.

"Back in the 1930s most car crashes involved people not wearing seatbelts. Now nearly all of them do. So how can you tell me seatbelts make things safer for anyone? Check mate, suckers!"

Very often they're the same people who spent the previous 12 months arguing there shouldn't be lockdown as well. So it seems not only are they against lockdown but also against the only realistic means by which we aren't in lockdown short of burying our heads in the sand and just assuming...

Someone who tweeted this week they were delighted masks aren't being required in the House of Lord's, someone who writes for Spiked and a prominent anti-lockdown conspiracy theorist who can't even remember how old his own dad is*. What are they good resources for, exactly, because it's clearly...

You'd still be required to provide proof of that (I don't know what, I've never looked into it), and the comment I saw about it the other day suggested it did.

Of course it should be pointed out that this scheme, as with the Amex, does not require the vaccination but will also allow for proof of a negative test or proof of recovery in lieu of the vaccination, so there is no requirement to be jabbed. Not wading in to this conversation but facts matter.

As evidenced by what happened in India when it first took off over there and what is happening in Mississippi right now

"Boo it's terrible that they're enforcing rules that say people must wear a seatbelt to travel in a car, they know that seatbelts don't make it less likely you'll have a crash right?"