Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Hugh]

In the mean time, if you're really interested, I provide the following link to be going on with, which links to a page on "vaccine" adverse reactions and deaths based on MHRA Yellow Card Covid-19 adverse reaction data (i.e. official government data) - information you are unlikely to see mentioned on your BBC.

https://yellowcard.ukcolumn.org/yellow-card-reports

Verifiable news sources?  UK Column? Seriously?

You berate the BBC (which I am also not holding up as a beacon of truth and integrity), but provide this far right wing conspiracy news source as something to be believed?

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/uk-column/

I'm just off to fashion a hat from the old Tennent's Super cans in order to further promote irresponsible thinking......wibble

And you believe all these "fact checkers"? You really are clueless. Anyway, as I say, the yellow card scheme is a government backed scheme which they are simply quoting, so  some "fact check" on UK column is irrelevant. Why does your BBC never mention this government backed yellow card scheme?

P.S.  Fact check - they describe UK Column as "strong right wing bias". Not far right which is a bit different. Twit.

[Hugh]

Admin, any chance of another sub-forum for those who wish to read Hugh's increasingly tedious posts?

Perhaps Dr Hugh?

Oy, don't single me out. Sale Holmfield and others started this. I was just responding. And I'm not suggesting the club should discourage (or encourage) medication, just that they should concentrate on the football. And perhaps you should too. (I was thinking of  calling for people to cite Peer(s) reviewed studies when they comment on Altrincham strikers...). I put loads of posts on the ot forum, it's other people who are bringing this on here (I've only mentioned this subject on here 15 times going back to at least April - hardly excessive).
Understand?

[Hugh]

1) 'The experimental gene therapy drugs don't stop transmission....'

2) 'Latest  data suggests that  they don't make much difference to hospitalisations and deaths'

3) '...and quite a lot of people have died from them...'

Either provide links to the peer reviewed sources you are quoting, or stop posting crank conspiracy nonsense; it's embarrassing frankly.

Same goes for someone suggesting the club should get involved with the "vaccine" coercion. Why is it a different standard for me? Twit.

In the mean time, if you're really interested, I provide the following link to be going on with, which links to a page on "vaccine" adverse reactions and deaths based on MHRA Yellow Card Covid-19 adverse reaction data (i.e. official government data) - information you are unlikely to see mentioned on your BBC.

https://yellowcard.ukcolumn.org/yellow-card-reports

I emphasise, people can make their own health decisions, and it's not an issue the club should get involved with (as someone else appeared to suggest they should - the reason I posted in the first place).

Jeremy Vine got very uppioty when someone managed to get onto his show highlighting this information.
The caller lied to get on - saying how he changed his mind after originally being anti vaccine - and, when accused of lying, pointed out that is what the BBC have been doing.

If we truly are an inclusive club, we should let anyone in reegardless of their medical history.

Some excellent point again Hugh, speaking as someone who has had his double jab.

Fair enough, and of course, people in at risk groups may decide the benefits outweigh the risks. All I'm saying is that people should have all the information they need to make up their mind about it (which seems woefully lacking at times from where I'm standing), and that they should not be coerced (see the Nurember codes), or badgered about it when all they want to do is watch a football match.

[cornishrobin]

Got pinged after the Torquay game Saturday but double jabbed so negative after PCR TEST so get jabbed and stay safe

[RockyRobin]

1) 'The experimental gene therapy drugs don't stop transmission....'

2) 'Latest  data suggests that  they don't make much difference to hospitalisations and deaths'

3) '...and quite a lot of people have died from them...'

Either provide links to the peer reviewed sources you are quoting, or stop posting crank conspiracy nonsense; it's embarrassing frankly.

Same goes for someone suggesting the club should get involved with the "vaccine" coercion. Why is it a different standard for me? Twit.

In the mean time, if you're really interested, I provide the following link to be going on with, which links to a page on "vaccine" adverse reactions and deaths based on MHRA Yellow Card Covid-19 adverse reaction data (i.e. official government data) - information you are unlikely to see mentioned on your BBC.

https://yellowcard.ukcolumn.org/yellow-card-reports

I emphasise, people can make their own health decisions, and it's not an issue the club should get involved with (as someone else appeared to suggest they should - the reason I posted in the first place).

Jeremy Vine got very uppioty when someone managed to get onto his show highlighting this information.
The caller lied to get on - saying how he changed his mind after originally being anti vaccine - and, when accused of lying, pointed out that is what the BBC have been doing.

If we truly are an inclusive club, we should let anyone in reegardless of their medical history.

Some excellent point again Hugh, speaking as someone who has had his double jab.

Yes I heard that call too, it was quite funny.

I was in a medical waiting room and it came on about our next caller being just the on message person they wanted about how he had seen the light! Then it turned out he was the opposite, Vine couldn't handle it and showed himself to be the ill informed mouth piece that he is.

Now don't get me wrong he was right to call out the Yellow Card stats as being not the way to measure issues with the vaccine; they are clearly just individuals logging that they felt off after having taken one. Which as Jeremy so was so keen to point out could be a co-incidence.

When challenged that this is exactly what "died of Covid" is too he couldn't see it or wouldn't see it.

In fact he wanted us to write the person off because apparently telling a fib to one of his "researchers" was a heinous crime - unbelievable Jeff!

UK Column bad, BBC bad - same sh*t different flavours.

[Uncle Globnasty]

In the mean time, if you're really interested, I provide the following link to be going on with, which links to a page on "vaccine" adverse reactions and deaths based on MHRA Yellow Card Covid-19 adverse reaction data (i.e. official government data) - information you are unlikely to see mentioned on your BBC.

https://yellowcard.ukcolumn.org/yellow-card-reports

Verifiable news sources?  UK Column? Seriously?

You berate the BBC (which I am also not holding up as a beacon of truth and integrity), but provide this far right wing conspiracy news source as something to be believed?

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/uk-column/

I'm just off to fashion a hat from the old Tennent's Super cans in order to further promote irresponsible thinking......wibble

And you believe all these "fact checkers"? You really are clueless. Anyway, as I say, the yellow card scheme is a government backed scheme which they are simply quoting, so  some "fact check" on UK column is irrelevant. Why does your BBC never mention this government backed yellow card scheme?

P.S.  Fact check - they describe UK Column as "strong right wing bias". Not far right which is a bit different. Twit.

Ooh, touched a nerve did we Hugh?

Resorting to name calling is the last vestige of those on unsure ground.

Damn lies and statistics Hugh, cherry pick what suits your agenda, regardless of validity or context (see RR's post above).

As for UK Column, take a closer look at their founder/owner, Brian Gerrish, only a short step away from the looney tune that is David Icke. Back in your barrel boy, lest the lizards eyeball you.

[Hugh]

Alright. The point is people should be a bit careful about incendiary (and possibly libelous) comments calling people (or implying that people are) far right. (And it seems no one else is calling UK Column (whose politics are of little interest to me) far right apart from you) . And for the record, Icke (who is entitled to his opinions), is not far right either. Now perhaps you could allow other people their opinions and move on. People of many beliefs and backgrounds support - and should be welcome at - this club.

[JD]

Alright. The point is people should be a bit careful about incendiary (and possibly libelous) comments calling people (or implying that people are) far right. (And it seems no one else is calling UK Column (whose politics are of little interest to me) far right apart from you) . And for the record, Icke (who is entitled to his opinions), is not far right either. Now perhaps you could allow other people their opinions and move on. People of many beliefs and backgrounds support - and should be welcome at - this club.

Indeed!

I think the divide now is between those who want freedom and those who don't!

[CRT Butty]

Alright. The point is people should be a bit careful about incendiary (and possibly libelous) comments calling people (or implying that people are) far right. (And it seems no one else is calling UK Column (whose politics are of little interest to me) far right apart from you) . And for the record, Icke (who is entitled to his opinions), is not far right either. Now perhaps you could allow other people their opinions and move on. People of many beliefs and backgrounds support - and should be welcome at - this club.

Indeed!

I think the divide now is between those who want freedom and those who don't!

Do you want the freedom to smoke in pubs back? Or the freedom to choose whether to drive on the left or the right? Freedom, it's a sliding scale, a spectrum not a binary freedom / not freedom thing.

[JD]

Alright. The point is people should be a bit careful about incendiary (and possibly libelous) comments calling people (or implying that people are) far right. (And it seems no one else is calling UK Column (whose politics are of little interest to me) far right apart from you) . And for the record, Icke (who is entitled to his opinions), is not far right either. Now perhaps you could allow other people their opinions and move on. People of many beliefs and backgrounds support - and should be welcome at - this club.

Indeed!

I think the divide now is between those who want freedom and those who don't!

Do you want the freedom to smoke in pubs back? Or the freedom to choose whether to drive on the left or the right? Freedom, it's a sliding scale, a spectrum not a binary freedom / not freedom thing.

Freedom to choose - within INTELLIGENT constraints. I repeat: INTELLIGENT!

i live in a country where freedoms are happily taken away by our dear leader - it is not good.

[One Foot in the Grave]

Would you prefer Afghanistan perhaps ?

[Bangor on Dee Robin]

Intelligent constraints ? the law (and not religion) dictates what is legal and morally right, intelligent is a matter of discussion.

Back to the game, com'on the Robbins. 3-0 Hancock has a worldie.

[Bath Alty]

The law dictates what is morally right

An interesting view but one I suggest is utterly wrong. Morals are not set by politicians or interpreted by the courts. Morals are determined by your belief system, whether that is one you have made up for yourself or a formal religion.  This could turn into an essay so I’ll stop!

[Bangor on Dee Robin]

The law is based on our morals (ie the law of tort-what is morally wright or wrong) and always precedes your religion or your ideas, thank god (a bad pun sorry).

Please get back to the footy 

[Bath Alty]

Exactly my point!  The law is based on our morals (your second post) not the law dictates what is morally right (your first post).

Meanwhile on radio robins still 0-0