IOM Covid removing restrictions

[The Voice of Reason]

1 minute ago, Uhtred said:

Well of course you would. 

Yes of course I would because it’s true.

[finlo]

1 minute ago, The Voice of Reason said:

Well therein lies a different problem.

If politicians use words which the majority of the electorate are not familiar ( I’ll warrant “overweening” being one of them) then I suggest that is worse than the odd mispronunciation.

They're not mispronouncing they're using incorrect words with no idea what they actually mean!

[WTF]

32 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

 

Actions not words is what they should be judged on.

 

 

that's the best yet, keep it up,  fuck my sides hurt.   🤣

[Utah 01]

6 hours ago, Amadeus said:

these things don't work when you're German and understand what he says

.......but they do when you're not German and don't understand what he says.

[Cassie2]

11 hours ago, Hugh G Rection said:

Okay.

What about the people that are seriously concerned about longer term side effects of the vaccine though.

I know people in their 20's (similar age to me) who are SERIOUSLY concerned about inter alia fertility issues that could potentially arise due to the lack of knowledge around mid-long term side effects.

There is growing evidence that, among many other serious medical issues arising from getting Covid19, this virus can affect fertility. No such evidence exists regarding the vaccines being offered. 

I expect that may somewhat reduce your self titled Hugh G Rection!

Perhaps you might read this article from the University of Miami: https://theconversation.com/covid-19-could-cause-male-infertility-and-sexual-dysfunction-but-vaccines-do-not-164139

In case you can't be bothered, here is a rapid executive Summary for you: ''Contrary to myths circulating on social media, COVID-19 vaccines do not cause erectile dysfunction and male infertility.

What is true: SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, poses a risk for both disorders.''

 

[Barlow]

40 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

 

Actions not words is what they should be judged on.

The shredding incident will follow him throughout the rest of his political career and beyond.

[The Phantom]

On the plus side.....

Howie o'clock made a surprise return

[The Voice of Reason]

Just now, Barlow said:

The shredding incident will follow him throughout the rest of his political career and beyond.

He’s explained that.

[Uhtred]

1 minute ago, The Voice of Reason said:

Yes of course I would because it’s true.

I did not suggest that politicians use words such as ‘overweening’ with which the electorate are unfamiliar - it was your response that implied I did so. I chose to use it in my remarks because it was accurate, relevant and appropriate  in the context of my sentiments. It was you who had no familiarity with the word. I’m absolutely  in favour of clear, unambiguous, cogent and relevant communication from the political cadre to the electorate. Which is exactly what we don’t benefit from. Try and take a look at Quayle’s car-crash press briefing a couple of years back in relation to the VAT related  ‘Paradise Papers’. If you consider that to be the performance of an effective leader and skilled communicator then I wash my hands of any genuine, serious, debate with you.

[wrighty]

All this talk of mispronunciation etc - I think it demonstrates that they’re reading speeches written by someone else. Hyper-bowl (I missed that one) being a good example. It’s basically not a good idea to try to deliver a speech using language outside one’s own vocabulary, which of course you don’t do if you write it yourself. 
 

I was at an inquest today - the coroner, who is clearly a highly intelligent, educated and capable individual, mispronounced many words reading out the medical jargon in some of the statements. Not entirely surprising, I’d be the same with legalese. 

[Uhtred]

Just now, wrighty said:

All this talk of mispronunciation etc - I think it demonstrates that they’re reading speeches written by someone else. Hyper-bowl (I missed that one) being a good example. It’s basically not a good idea to try to deliver a speech using language outside one’s own vocabulary, which of course you don’t do if you write it yourself. 
 

I was at an inquest today - the coroner, who is clearly a highly intelligent, educated and capable individual, mispronounced many words reading out the medical jargon in some of the statements. Not entirely surprising, I’d be the same with legalese. 

All very fair comment - which immediately raises the question that if our political leaders are competent individuals on top of their brief and adequately informed, why don’t they write their own speeches? 

[wrighty]

And, fraudulent, fraudulent or Freudian? I don’t think any of those words correctly describes Dr Ewart’s 8000/80000 slip - that was just a slip of the tongue, something which can happen to anyone when public speaking (see James Naughtie’s example of metathesis over Jeremy Hunt, Culture Secretary)

[quilp]

31 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

“These people are ignoramuses”. It’s not quite sure who you mean but for the sake of argument let’s assume you mean Quayle and Ashcroft.

Is Quayler getting new wallpaper?

31 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

Yes a slip of the tongue...

😁

31 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

Actions not words is what they should be judged on.

Giving consideration to the action around you, government projects, planning, covid response, et al: What do you see? A whiff of success, perhaps?

31 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

And at the moment they are being largely judged a success by the majority.

While this is probably true, whatever the zeitgeist is on public platforms and social media, it really shouldn't be used as a measure of actual success and popularity in real terms.

31 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

Will this do Howard..? 

 

[The Voice of Reason]

1 minute ago, Uhtred said:

I did not suggest that politicians use words such as ‘overweening’ with which the electorate are unfamiliar - it was your response that implied I did so. I chose to use it in my remarks because it was accurate, relevant and appropriate  in the context of my sentiments. It was you who had no familiarity with the word. I’m absolutely  in favour of clear, unambiguous, cogent and relevant communication from the political cadre to the electorate. Which is exactly what we don’t benefit from. Try and take a look at Quayle’s car-crash press briefing a couple of years back in relation to the VAT related  ‘Paradise Papers’. If you consider that to be the performance of an effective leader and skilled communicator then I wash my hands of any genuine, serious, debate with you.

Yes I am (was) unfamiliar with the word “ overweening “ but I feel no sense in shame at that.

Howard Quayle’s performance during the Paradise Papers incident was not brilliant I agree but he has certainly learnt from that and has equipped him better to deal with the far more serious threat of Covid 19

Please feel free to disengage with any debate with me. Rarely from your side has it been genuine or serious, rather more just mud slinging at our elected representatives.

[Utah 01]

5 hours ago, Andy Onchan said:

Piss off.

Tolerance, the freedom to express contrary opinions no matter how whacky and even lie (be it the individual or the State) - that's what we like to see in a free and liberal society and I would have thought that a lawyer would be one of those values staunchest defendants - or are we witnessing, yet again, the pandering to a vociferous minority?