I have to say I now appreciate it’s a more nuanced problem that it first appears after reading tjagains arguments.
I’m still of the opinion that patient safety trumps those concerns, but there’s definitely wiggle room for how that’s achieved- for instance a kind of honourable discharge with the accompanying no loss of benefits if you feel you have to leave because you won’t get vaccinated.
However, the fertile men argument is bollocks - you don’t get women pregnant by breathing the same air as them or leaving a trace on a surface.
cougar - sorry - should have made that clear "competence" in the legal sense
But your belligerence is startling
apologies for that. Its hard not to react to people not understanding the issues and being belligerent to me because they do not understand the issues
I will drop it now. I think the BMJ quotes show the objections well.
God, there’s some bollocks being spouted on here. If you work in healthcare wash your hands, put a mask on and get jabbed. It’s really not much to ask.
Before I’m accused of double standards, I’d like it to be compulsory in all work places. By all means be an anti vax moron, but do it somewhere where you’re not endangering me and my family.
your beef is about a contractual change?
No - its about undermining a major part of medical ethics and a reversal of centuries of medical ethical development
tjagain
Full Member
Having studied this, perhaps you could come up with a slightly less batshit example?
Read the big long quote from the BMJ
Yeah..... read it..... not a great article to be honest, and I don't see any analogies in there
I have to say I now appreciate it’s a more nuanced problem that it first appears after reading tjagains arguments.
Thank you
Once the issues are understood then you can make informed comments either side of the debate. without that understanding of the ethical considerations then you cannot.
Do I understand..... can I comment?
The issue you have with this approach, is that the NHS is already understaffed.
If we take your approach and say 5%* of the NHS workforce is forced to leave, then what happens the next time you need treatment?
Yet it didn't seem to be much of a concern when we told at least twice that number to piss off for the crime of being European. "I went to A&E and contracted Romanian!" said no-one ever.
@Andy_Sweet - but if you're vaccinated how are the unvaccinated a threat to you and your family exactly?
I will drop it now.
You've said that about six times now and you're still replying to people. (-:
No – its about undermining a major part of medical ethics and a reversal of centuries of medical ethical development
Aha. "We've always done it this way." Always a good reason to keep doing things.
False logic. You can still pass on COVID if you’re jabbed so not sure what the point of the policy is as it is not actually providing any additional protection to anyone other than those who choose not to be jabbed
Not true.
The viral load you receive from someone who is jabbed is the same as from someone who isn’t jabbed.
Also not true.
But ultimately the only person they [anti-vaxxers] are risking or hurting are themselves.
Imagine thinking you can participate in a debate when your understanding is so poor.
Well done for demonstrating the point that one of the larger problems with the whole wider debate is that the internet has enable everyone to have their say, even if they're talking complete nonsense.
Just picking my way through this thread.
Small point of order that wrankled...
all citizens have a duty to report a crime
No they don't.
There is absolutely no compunction at all, legally or morally.
As for the rest, it's no doubt complex and to see the benefits of one side of the argument isn't ignoring the other. Not sure I ascribe to the 'coercion' points.
Ethics cut both ways, and sometimes the rights of the individual have to give way to the rights of society.
There's no great ethical trump card (let alone a medical ethics one).
Not true.
Was true according to an actual expert on TV earlier today.
Also not true.
Was true according to an actual expert on TV earlier today.
magine thinking you can participate in a debate when your understanding is so poor.
Oh get over yourself man. I get my info from experts. I'm not making this shit up. There might be a problem of different experts saying different things and that is a problem as we don't know who to believe but the fact is there are experts that are saying these things.
Maybe its the case, like in alot of science, that we don't fully understand this and that there is different scientific opinion out there.
Anyway would love to understand why the infection rate is as high as it has been before vaccination when 70% of the population are double vaccinated. IF it was the case that vaccinations did reduce infection rates then why is the overall infection rate not significantly lower? Why is the data not impacted by the very high vaccination rate? Why is it that double vaccinated people are catching the virus from other double vaccinated people?
andrewreay
sorry - I thought we did have the duty to report a crime as a member of the public. I am fairly sure healthcare workers do under the codes of conduct but I stand corrected
Ok, I've read everything, I've thought about everything, I've enjoyed the argument, and I've ended up pretty much where I started:
Those working in contact with vulnerable people should have the jab. If they don't want it they should look for new work or be temporarily put on duties where they do not come into contact with patients or those working with patients.
We've had this at my workplace. I work with adults with learning disabilities, but many have other issues as well - respiratory problems, Downs Syndrome, diabetes, old age, etc - that leave them especially vulnerable. Like any right-thinking person in this position I got double jabbed and boosted at the first opportunity, as did nearly everyone else. A few casual staff decided they didn't want the jab and stopped taking shifts.
A friend I've known for years is a good guy, but a bit 'they're watching, you know?'. He refused the vaccine and left the place he'd worked for 10 years.
It's a real shame, the service users loved him and he knew his job well. Initially I couldn't understand why he couldn't be put on outside non-contact work (we have a big site, and there's always plenty to do) until this is over. I think the CEO - also a good guy - decided that he had to enforce this or others would ask for similar leniency. We're also encouraging all of our service users to get vaccinated - we rightly cannot compel those who are competent to make the decision themselves - and if there were unvaccinated staff it would undermine the position.
I sympathise, I really do. I think it's daft not to take up the vaccination, but it's up to each person. However, I do not think it is wrong to state "For this role you need to be vaccinated". Simple as that.
There might be a problem of different experts saying different things and that is a problem as we don’t know who to believe but the fact is there are experts that are saying these things.
If experts disagree then they should be talking to each other in order to come to a consensus before taking their findings to the great unwashed. If they aren't doing that then they aren't experts, they're simply opinionated gobshites like me and TJ.
Joking aside, "expert" is an easy word to throw around but actual experts are few and far between.
the end justifies the means?
Very clearly it does sometimes, depending on what the end is and what the means are. Evaluating this is the key issue here.
I sympathise, I really do. I think it’s daft not to take up the vaccination, but it’s up to each person.
Surely it's more than daft. It's potentially dangerous and could result in someone's death, couldn't it?
To avoid more people leaving the NHS wouldn’t it be smarter to bring out vaccine passports to get into pubs, clubs, cinemas etc., and maybe also a 1p income tax levy on vaccine refusers to pay for the extra healthcare burden they are creating.
That way you’d likely get the bulk of the NHS staff who have dodged the vaccine to reconsider without risking more leaving, but also get the rest of the population not in the NHS jabbed.
If experts disagree then they should be talking to each other in order to come to a consensus before taking their findings to the great unwashed.
I pasted a large quote from experts. Pollok in particular is a well known expert in medical ethics. I have read a lot of her stuff. well worth reading.
the debate is going on and I agree there is one but its complex and nuanced not simplistic as some folk here would like to see and the government have pushed on without listening to the debate among experts
Is the concern that it all goes a bit Black Mirror?
If the next pandemic results in widespread kidney failure would everyone be happy if forced to donate a kidney “for the greater good”. Whilst I was happy to get a vaccine, I might draw my own line at that point. For others I guess they’ve drawn a line at a different level.
I do have some sympathy with people who might feel forced into this choice and pointing a finger and shouting that they’re morons might not be productive. For many, I would say that the choice to leave a career, not just a job, isn’t really a choice at all.
the end justifies the means?
In this instance, in my opinion, yes.
@mudmucher - would you be prepared to extend that levy for overweight people, smokers, excessive alcohol drinkers, people who participate in DIY, sports..... and mountain bikers who can end up in A&E from time to time too?
the government have pushed on without listening to the debate among experts
the government seem to be experts at that.
Anyway would love to understand why the infection rate is as high as it has been before vaccination when 70% of the population are double vaccinated.
More people are mixing with more other people. Mask wearing is down markedly everywhere, though still higher in Scotland than in other parts
My SO has had three doses so far and employer still expects regular PCR tests. The vaccine doesn't stop you getting ill or passing covid on. So to enforce vaccination and have the resulting fallout...
But why expect the government to find out why there is hesitency, particualarly when it appears to be linked to certain features such as income/education/location/etc.
I pasted a large quote from experts. Pollok in particular is a well known expert in medical ethics. I have read a lot of her stuff. well worth reading.
the debate is going on and I agree there is one but its complex and nuanced not simplistic
This being the case, is it not reckless and irresponsible for "experts" to be publicly disagreeing in sight of non-experts who are by definition far less equipped to evaluate a conclusion? This is how we got Wakefield's MMR/autism horseshit. This is how we got brexit.
But why expect the government to find out why there is hesitency,
Why there is vaccine hesitancy is well documented. It's because we have a nation of cretins.
This being the case, is it not reckless and irresponsible for “experts” to be publicly disagreeing in sight of non-experts who are by definition far less equipped to evaluate a conclusion?
this is how debates in the medical world are done. there is no other way.
I'm well aware of how science works. That wasn't my point.
More people are mixing with more other people. Mask wearing is down markedly everywhere, though still higher in Scotland than in other parts
This of course makes complete sense, I'm just surprised. If the vaccinations are significantly effective in reducing infections and the infection rates have risen so high then given 70% of the population are double vaccinated, the majority of infections are amongst the double vaccinated. This certainly bears out in my personal experience of friends and work colleagues who are getting positive PCR tests left right and centre despite being double vaccinated, but the majority having no symptoms whatsoever. We're just crucibles for the virus.
The main thing is that the majority of severe disease, hospitalisations and deaths are amongst the unvaccinated so that should be the biggest reason for people to get the vaccine.
For consent to be valid, it must be voluntary and informed, and the person consenting must have the capacity to make the decision.
The meaning of these terms are:
voluntary – the decision to either consent or not to consent to treatment must be made by the person, and must not be influenced by pressure from medical staff, friends or family
informed – the person must be given all of the information about what the treatment involves, including the benefits and risks, whether there are reasonable alternative treatments, and what will happen if treatment does not go ahead
capacity – the person must be capable of giving consent, which means they understand the information given to them and can use it to make an informed decision
That's talking about patients, not staff.
cougar - no thats talking about everyone - thats the principles of consent in medical worlds and when it comes to actually giving the vaccination to staff they become the patient as they are being given a treatment
GMC have a view on this and rather unsurprisingly they’re expected to get vaccinated as professional.
Oh as have the Nursery and Midwifery council.
If the vaccinations are significantly effective in reducing infections and the infection rates have risen so high then given 70% of the population are double vaccinated,
Speaks for itself and you answered it in your last paragraph too. If you have such a high amount vaccinated, I think it’s over 80% in the most vulnerable. Then an infection stands to be likely in the vaccinated. As you go on to say the deaths in the unvaccinated are considerably higher.
There’s some good studies here by experts that haven’t appeared on the TV, TV expert always make me sceptical.
@mudmucher – would you be prepared to extend that levy for overweight people, smokers, excessive alcohol drinkers, people who participate in DIY, sports….. and mountain bikers who can end up in A&E from time to time too?
@lamp - we already have a levy for smokers and excessive alcohol consumers with billions of extra tax on fags and booze which more than covers the cost of their NHS treatment. Not sure where we are with the sugar tax, but I think we are going down the same road with overweight people too. Sports/MTBing have a net positive health benefit and save the NHS money despite the odd accident.
Any heathcare worker that does not get vaccinated is wrong ( without good medical reason)
However that does not justify the coercion which runs a coach and horses thru the principle of consentand medical ethics
You cannot consent to the vaccination legally under coercion.
False logic. You can still pass on COVID if you’re jabbed so not sure what the point of the policy is as it is not actually providing any additional protection to anyone other than those who choose not to be jabbed
Not true.
The viral load you receive from someone who is jabbed is the same as from someone who isn’t jabbed.
Also not true.
But ultimately the only person they [anti-vaxxers] are risking or hurting are themselves.
Imagine thinking you can participate in a debate when your understanding is so poor.
Well done for demonstrating the point that one of the larger problems with the whole wider debate is that the internet has enable everyone to have their say, even if they’re talking complete nonsense.
Are you sure that is not correct. This is a quote from STWs TiRed (a noted expert in the field) from the other thread (page 839)
Precisely this. The vaccine is doing relatively little for transmission. I noted this when delta first emerged in Israel. It spread at the same rate in a vaccinated population as alpha did in an unvaccinated.
You cannot consent to the vaccination legally under coercion.
You keep saying it’s coercion. For me it is very much a professional responsibility as healthcare worker, if you don’t want then you can’t expect to work in patient contact. So you work in none contact role or leave.
Paramedics has to all become mentors to continue as a registered professional as well as meet other clinical needs. All added in recent years, any who didn’t do this a time frame had to surrender their registration. I know you’re going to bleat on but its not a medication, however this is a sample of how requirements can change whilst employed.
Vaccination reduces transmission - link to New Scientist article that links to papers. " Effectiveness of full vaccination of the index against transmission to unvaccinated household contacts was 63% (95%CI 46-75%). "
If you're not vaccinated without good cause (in a trial, recent infection, unable to be vaccinated for medical reason etc.), you shouldn't be working with vulnerable people. It's a "do no harm" thing.
and the government have pushed on without listening to the debate among experts
I would suggest this is bollox, they listened to the debate, the conservatives are remember a libertarian party, they have come down on the side of a mandate. Just because they didn't side with your preferred experts it doesn't mean they were not listened to.
Any heathcare worker that does not get vaccinated is wrong
So why don't the professional bodies suspend the registration of those who don't other than for medical reasons?
Drac - if its get vaccinated or lose your job and your right to work then thats coercion
Consent given under duress is not consent.
If experts disagree then they should be talking to each other in order to come to a consensus before taking their findings to the great unwashed. If they aren’t doing that then they aren’t experts,
So no expert should speak out if they believe that the consensus of other experts is flawed? We might all still be smoking 20 a day and Sally Clarke would still be in jail if nobody ever highlighted that not all experts agree on everything.
As a boss, if I demand that an employee either be vaccinated or loose their job, who would be responsible if that employee had a rare, but serious adverse reaction to their vaccination?
The government.
tricky one stampjumper
If you are the boss of a care home you can pass the buck to the government as its legally mandated by them. If not its on your head
And please note the point about consent. Its a real point and that would be consent under duress so no legal consent
who would be responsible if that employee had a rare, but serious adverse reaction to their vaccination?
My mum is a nurse with many decades of experience. She also has a rare condition (Ehlers-Danlos) which makes her very susceptible to an overactive immune response (it turns out, she's allergic to the alcohol in hand sanitiser, which now means she essentially can't go in any public buildings.) Given the known effects of both Covid and the vaccines on the immune system, it is not obvious what her best course of action should have been. She was deeply troubled, for the same reasons that @tjagain has expressed, that the only advice she could get was "just get vaccinated", and said that it was impossible to get any information that would help her give informed consent. She had the vaccine, and had a terrible reaction. She's only just back in work part-time, after 8 months off.
Yes, I am fully aware this is an outlier of outliers.
Also as @tjagain has said - if the argument that "there is very little known harm, and it's at least a very little beneficial" (and not backed by any particular evidence) is enough to overturn centuries of medical ethics, then we are in a very bad place already.
The government.
You'll get a pittance from the Vaccine Damage Payout system.
Edit: As we all know, you won't get anything from the vaccine developers, as they were granted legal protection.
Why dont we have a vaccine referendum? on compulsory vaccination?
After all my quality of life and rights have been reduced/removed by a referendum...
stampjumper - if thats a serious position for you take proper legal advice
The government.
So technically the boss would be just following orders?
In the case of the NHS and of care homes then yes that would probably seem to be the case, but what about private companies currently outside this mandate? Pimlico plumbers for example where boss Charlie Mullins has publicly stated that "we will introduce a mandatory requirement for all staff to have received a Covid vaccine and will fire staff who refuse without a valid reason". Who would be responsible in this situation?
And please note the point about consent. Its a real point and that would be consent under duress so no legal consent
So if the employee in question had worked for the NHS for most of their career and had no other specialist skills outside of their current role/training with which to provide for their family, their future or pay their mortgage/rent etc. then realistically they are not being given a genuine choice. Would this be considered consent under duress?
I hate to bring up the "T" word but
that would be consent under duress so no legal consent
But don't you need to qualify that with an "in my opinion" rather than a straight factual statement to avoid coming over a little bit Trump?
I'm not saying you are not correct, but has there been any case law or precedent yet to ironclad clarify that not being able to continue with your present line of employment constitutes duress when it comes to vaccination? Or is it just your lay, but informed, opinion of the situation?
To spin it - if an employee doing a physical role had a chronic back problem that stopped them doing their job that could only be possibly resolved with surgery they could currently be quite legally dismissed on grounds of capability. Under your definition of duress if that person could only keep their job if they had that surgery that would constitute duress. And thousands of people annually end their employment like that. I'm not aware of lots of litigation off the back of it (if due process is followed).
Well I could say IMO but the quote I gave from the NHS website about consent confirms it, my training I have had made it clear
For consent to be valid, it must be voluntary and informed, and the person consenting must have the capacity to make the decision.
The meaning of these terms are:
voluntary – the decision to either consent or not to consent to treatment must be made by the person, and must not be influenced by pressure from medical staff, friends or family
informed – the person must be given all of the information about what the treatment involves, including the benefits and risks, whether there are reasonable alternative treatments, and what will happen if treatment does not go ahead
capacity – the person must be capable of giving consent, which means they understand the information given to them and can use it to make an informed decision
Would this be considered consent under duress?
yes - ultimatly for the courts to decide I guess
and must not be influenced by pressure from medical staff, friends or family
medical staff, friends or family......
'current employers' seems sadly missing from the list.
I think you need more than that quote to be so definitive. What do you think of my late edition example edit?
yes – ultimatly for the courts to decide I guess
So, you do need to start adding IMO then 😉
stampjumper – if thats a serious position for you take proper legal advice
Thankfully it is not for me but it is for my brother and biking compadre who is an NHS Consultant Ophthalmic Surgeon. Hence quite close to my heart. He's not sure what to do having worked for the NHS for 18 years. He feels like it's a massive kick in the teeth for all those NHS staff who have gone above and beyond over then last 18 months to keep the NHS running under some very difficult circumstances.
I think his gut is telling him to resign and concentrate on private work, which ironically could still have him seeing NHS patients. He says that there are many other NHS staff who feel the same, both vaccinated and unvaccinated. Many have simply had enough of government meddling, of focusing everything around Covid at the expense of almost all other types of patient. The crisis in the NHS at the moment is no longer one of Covid. It is a crisis of all of those people who have had treatment delayed in the name of keeping hospitals quiet for Covid, and those who have been too scared to seek treatment or not seen their GP for routine stuff until it is too late meaning that the conditions they are now presenting with are often far more complex and difficult to treat. Yet with the Covid obsessive culture that still prevails, it is very difficult to speak out apparently.
I have had my vaccine but he is hesitant as his best man is now in a wheelchair after an adverse reaction. Therefore I respect his decision. For anyone saying he is selfish then I would ask you to speak to any of the people who's sight he has saved over the last 18 years. He will be a loss to the NHS if he goes.
What do you think of my late edition example edit?
nonsense- not a paralell at all
and the quote from the NHS is quite clear its just a shortened form not listing every possible pressure point. would you like my lecture notes around consent?
Its very clear - consent must be given freely and without pressure otherwise its not valid
Bugger - sucked back in!
As we all know, you won’t get anything from the vaccine developers, as they were granted legal protection.
Like all vaccines.
So technically the boss would be just following orders?
No.
nonsense- not a paralell at all
Sorry, not following your logic. Can you explain your thinking. Both situations require a medical procedure to continue current employment. The dude with the dicky back would have a significantly bigger risk factor electing to have the surgery.
and the quote from the NHS is quite clear its just a shortened form not listing every possible pressure point. would you like my lecture notes around consen
😀 You do appreciate how Trump like that sounds! "Yes the evidence I present to you does not actually say what I tell you it says, but it's 'clearly' meant to!" We might need to see your lecture notes, god help us! Or an 'imo' until there is case law to make it a bit more cut and dry 😉
I have had my vaccine but he is hesitant as his best man is now in a wheelchair after an adverse reaction.
Surely he can appreciate that there are many more people dead of COVID than there are harmed by the vaccine?
Like all vaccines.
No. Previously, legal protection was provided for those administering vaccines, and those manufacturing them. At the time that the Covid vaccine was released in the UK, one of the legal changes that was made included extending protection to those companies placing the vaccines on the market.
The UK government therefore proposes to clarify the legislation by putting the pharmaceutical company responsible for placing unlicensed products on the market on the same footing as manufacturers of unlicensed products – and the same footing as marketing authorisation holders of products which the licensing authority recommends are used otherwise than in accordance with their authorisation. This will help to give companies willing to co-operate in the sort of mass vaccination programme under consideration for COVID-19, or mass distribution of treatments in other situations, some assurance that they will not be exposed inappropriately to civil liability.
I think his gut is telling him to resign and concentrate on private work, which ironically could still have him seeing NHS patients.
So would need to be vaccinated as he’s being paid by the NHS. He needs to speak to the GMC and seek some legal advice, proper legal advice.
and the quote from the NHS is quite clear its just a shortened form not listing every possible pressure point.
Is it? Because that’s not what it says. An expectation from your employer/government is different from Dave who drink in The Winchester saying you should have or there’s no more lads night out.
The UK government therefore proposes to clarify the legislation by putting the pharmaceutical company responsible for placing unlicensed products on the market on the same footing as manufacturers of unlicensed products
But they’re licensed?
Meanwhile for those taking the decision to ‘just get vaccinated’ lightly, please listen to one of our own, Mr Kyle Warner. What a credit this young man is to us all.
Another brand new poster with all this stuff, deja vu again.
One of our own - what a middle aged civil servant? Why is he a credit to me?
But they’re licensed?
Not at the time of their initial release, no. They were granted special provision to be released to the public under section 1 of the link I previously provided. More info here:
In fact, I can’t find any reference to the vaccines being fully licenced since then.
To date, the COVID-19 Vaccine Pfizer/BioNTech has been supplied in the UK on a temporary basis under Regulation 174 of the Human Medicine Regulations 2012, but as this was always intended to be a temporary arrangement, supply of this vaccine will change to be in accordance with the conditional Marketing Authorisation (CMA).
Surely he can appreciate that there are many more people dead of COVID than there are harmed by the vaccine?
You mean died within 28 days of a positive test for SARS-CoV-2?
It depends on age and underlying health really. As a fit man in his 40's with no underlying health conditions he is statistically at incredibly low risk from Covid-19. He's had it actually, as have I. A very few minor symptoms, that's all. If he was in his 80's, overweight and in poor general health then he'd be daft not to get the vaccine. But why should he have to justify his choice to anyone else? It is his body. His health. He's already had Covid too, yet this counts for nothing apparently?
We also need to consider the rumours that news of vaccine adverse events are being heavily suppressed by the media, not taken seriously or simply labeled as coincidence without proper investigation. My brothers best man has had posts he's made to FB about his vaccine injury removed by FB as mis-information. See also Kyle Warner link above for an example and also his post here.
I don't know how true the above is and nor am I qualified to say, but just ask yourself when did the media ever show you any of the really huge protests currently happening in major cities around the world (and regularly happening for many months now) against vaccine passports? They don't show you this do they. Have you ever wondered why not?
Regardless of who is right or wrong here, there are huge trust issues surrounding our government we need to resolve at the moment who I think we can all agree have been less than transparent.
Sorry, I hope this does not come across as all conspiracy theory. It is not meant in that context.
Meanwhile for those taking the decision to ‘just get vaccinated’ lightly, please listen to one of our own, Mr Kyle Warner. What a credit this young man is to us all.
Never heard of him. I don’t think he’s like me at all, for one he’s spouting about his individual experience like it definitive evidence, yet they is still not proper diagnoses of his issues.
Tell me Stampjumper why have you suddenly joined the forum to post on this thread?
Sorry, I hope this does not come across as all conspiracy theory.
Oh it does.
What do you actual think the 28 days mean?
What rumours and why do you think they’re true over actual data?
You don’t know how true it is, still linked to a guy who has been fact checked.
Last time I heard about the protests, well that would be Saturday, Sunday and Monday.
Never heard of him. I don’t think he’s like me at all
No he's not a ****.
Well that escalated quickly.
No he’s not a ****.
Who was the last troll who got all shouty when he got called out? There’s so many of them they all blend into one.
Deleted.
I hadn't realised the direction the thread had gone.
Also deleted, I should know better.
I doubt you’ll hear from Stampjumper again.
Ha, it's gone they way they often do. Fully the way of the shit-flinging, lobotomised chimp.
Ha, it’s gone they way they often do. Fully the way of the shit-flinging, lobotomised chimp.
Yeah I guess he didn’t see that coming. Sounds like he needs to speak with his brother.
when did the media ever show you any of the really huge protests currently happening in major cities around the world (and regularly happening for many months now) against vaccine passports? They don’t show you this do they. Have you ever wondered why not?
And they still haven't admitted that jet fuel cannot melt steel!
Yeah I guess he didn’t see that coming. Sounds like he needs to speak with his brother.
Screw you for stealing the joke I was going to make.
Why doesn't STW maintain - and make available - a list of banned posters and their various new user names?
We need to know.
Stampjumper appears to be the latest example; are they really a brand new member? Freshly minted with so much to
say?
So now we are down this particular rabbit hole-
Vital interest in respect to mandatory vaccination... discuss.
Quietly **** to the corner and takes a seat.
