Could mRNA Vaccines Permanently Alter DNA? Recent Science Suggests They Might.

a reply to: Grenade

Surely, we'll all be microchipped by then?

Did you not get the Memo?

😉

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Nah I’d say that’s another global catastrophe and a decade away.

a reply to: Grenade

Cheery old soul, ain't we?

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Realist mate not a fantasist.

The writing is on the wall for our way of life, I’d rather not bury my head in the sand.

a reply to: Grenade

Come on, get real. My head is in the real world.

originally posted by: Grenade
Realist mate not a fantasist.

Your take on the gravity of such a situation seems to be a bit fantastic.

Unless someone believes this to be the mark of the beast, which would be a fantasy as well, it isn't as big a deal as you are making it out to be.

a reply to: daskakik

I think you need to open your eyes. Unless you think printing money indefinitely is a permanent solution to the economic devastation caused by worldwide lockdowns that will be felt for years to come. Not to mention the mandates and emergency powers, restrictions on freedom and travel, touted digital vaccination passports etc. None of these things are the realm of fantasy. Am I over exaggerating or stating fact?

originally posted by: Grenade
Am I over exaggerating or stating fact?

Both.

a reply to: daskakik

Please highlight the over exaggeration.

a reply to: Grenade
You calling it a health dictatorship earlier is one example.

If I'm pulled over while driving I am asked for papers for the vehicle and for my permission to drive. Nobody is going around calling that a transportation dictatorship.

So you are stating facts but you are also exaggerating the gravity of that situation, like I said earlier.

ETA: And by "that situation" I mean having to carry proof of vax/recovery. It just isn't that big of a deal given how much control there already is in society.

a reply to: daskakik

In the UK we live under a constitutional monarchy. Our legislative process generally involves any new laws or changes to existing laws to be debated and then passed through parliament. When you circumvent elected representatives of the people and pass laws without parliamentary approval or debate its the very definition of dictatorship.

Dictatorship:
A dictatorship is a form of government characterized by a single leader or group of leaders and little or no toleration for political pluralism or independent media.

As this new system is being predicated on public health i chose the term "health dictatorship", i think its quite apt, certainly at the moment.

The example you provided is incomparable to corona restrictions, new laws on transport and safety are debated and voted on in parliament.

What if i don't want my children or I to receive experimental vaccines for a disease that likely would have no serious effect on us? Should i be ostracised from society for non conformity?

Finally, if you want to submit your remaining freedom and liberty due to fear that's entirely up to you. The new world needs plenty of genetically modified, robotic, slaves of the system.

a reply to: Grenade
So, if they pass it through parliament then you are good with it?

Would kinda prove my point.

a reply to: daskakik

They wont. No MP worth their salt is going to vote for draconian authoritarian rule. It kind of makes their job obsolete.

a reply to: Grenade
The question wasn't if they would or they wouldn't but if you would be ok with it if they did?

If not, then why even bring it up.

a reply to: daskakik

Yes, i believe our parliamentary process should be invoked in all matters of law creation. It's there to hold government account, let them do their job.

As i said, no MP would vote against their constituents and setup a dictatorship, it's political and professional suicide.

IF these laws had gone through the correct process then yes i would accept them.

Dictatorships are rarely established by any kind of democratic process, hence our elected representatives had no say in the matter.

a reply to: Grenade
What laws?

We were talking about health passports and they have not happened yet and from what I have seen they are going to try to pass that law through parliament.

By the way, if your constitution/laws allow emergency measures then these measures were legal.

a reply to: daskakik

Currently over 500 laws in the UK reference coronavirus.

It's a grey area, Carpy might be able to clear up the legality of it all. Although we agree on very little i still value his opinion.

I thought this was a decent article:

www.legalcheek.com...

"There are many formal accounts. I will use that set out by Joseph Raz in Chapter 11 of The Authority of Law (1979). This is because it captures the majority of formal touchstones popularly associated with the rule of law. There are eight touchstones:

(1) All laws should be prospective, open and clear;
(2) Laws should be relatively stable;
(3) The making of particular legal orders should be guided by open, stable and clear general rules;
(4) Independence of the judiciary should be guaranteed;
(5) The principles of natural justice should be observed;
(6) Courts should have review powers over the implementation of other principles;
(7) Courts should be easily accessible, and;
(8) The discretion of crime preventing agencies may not pervert the law."

His conclusion and reasoning:

"Sadly, however, coronavirus laws are not ‘clear’. Four matters point towards this conclusion.

First, coronavirus laws are very long. The Coronavirus Act 2020 runs to 348 pages, has 102 sections and 29 schedules. The ‘three-tier’ system of lockdown comprised some 30,000 words, spread over three statutory instruments. Simply reading all this information is a challenge, to say nothing of understanding it.

Second, coronavirus laws are very numerous. At the time of writing, legislation.gov.uk yields 551 laws with the word ‘coronavirus’ in the title. Indeed, many statutory instruments exist simply to amend other, non-coronavirus-related secondary legislation on topics from income tax (S.I. 2020/524) to apprenticeships (S.I. 2020/1120) to offshore chemicals (S.I. 2020/855). One must now sift through a large volume of legal materials, if one is to discern the law to which one is subject.

Third, coronavirus laws contain vague language. Take, for example, ‘mingling’. ‘Mingling’ in a group of more than six people was prohibited (outside certain exempted situations) by S.I. 2020/986. This was the first proscription of interpersonal ‘mingling’, and the meaning of the word wasn’t clear. On 15 September 2020, Priti Patel (Secretary of State for the Home Department) asserted that the proscription disallowed two families of four people from stopping to chat while walking to a park. A contrary view was expressed by Adam Wagner (the human rights barrister and Specialist Advisor to the Joint Committee on Human Rights’ COVID-19 Inquiry) who tweeted that, to ‘mingle’, people must have met ‘in order’ to socially engage, which the park-goers will not have done. A law is not particularly ‘clear’ if specialists disagree about what it means.

Fourth, coronavirus laws can become confused with legally inconsequential government guidance. On 23 March 2020, Prime Minister Boris Johnson gave a televised address to the United Kingdom. Johnson instructed that “you must stay at home”, and presented “the only reasons you should leave your home” as a closed list (e.g. shopping for basic necessities; one form of exercise per day; medical need; travelling to and from work). At the time, none of this was law. Three days later, though, S.I. 2020/684 entered into force. Strikingly, the instrument provided that people could leave homes if they had a ‘reasonable excuse’ (the non-exhaustiveness of which differed from Johnson’s four given examples). Laws are not ‘clear’ if, owing to additional government guidance on the relevant issue, people are liable to become confused about the strict legal position. Particularly so when that additional guidance is communicated directly to the populace, in imperative terms, by the Prime Minister.

Notwithstanding their prospectivity and openness, coronavirus laws’ lack of clarity (associated with their length, volume, opacity and potential for conflation with mere guidance) disrupts individuals’ abilities to plan their lives in accordance with what is lawful. To that extent, the government’s response appears to deviate from what is required by the first criterion of Raz’s conception of rule of law."

a reply to: Grenade
So, they were passed by parliament?

Even if they don't fit the criterion listed in that article, they were still not passed by a dictator.

a reply to: daskakik

I'm not here as your personal research assistant.

publications.parliament.uk...

The act was passed through the house of commons WITHOUT a vote.

a reply to: Grenade
I'm not asking you to be.

You brought up laws having to go through parliament and then post the covid laws that apparently went through parliament.

Like I said, if bending of protocols is allowed because of emergency situations, then that is perfectly legal.

I guess if you disagree you can sue or something. Trying to convince me that there is something wrong with that isn't going to change anything.