Stive Pesley

Can't for the life of me work out why they would have gone big on the BBC.

Is this the same Daily Mail that took massive objection (rightly) to the BBC footage of Christian Eriksen's heart attack and close-up of his team mates' reactions, who printed still pictures of him being attended on the pitch and close-up's of his wife's reaction?

Agree - lots of good points in there
What I keep coming back to is the fact that the EFL, although there is a governing body -  are actually made up of the member teams
We know that *certain* other members have it in for us (mentioning no Gibsons) but what must the other members think when they see how we're being treated? The precedent is being set that the EFL can approve something but then at an unspecified point in the future, change their minds and seek to punish clubs. 
Surely no other members want that? Surely they all want a fair and consistently applied set of clear rules
 

Agree - lots of good points in there
What I keep coming back to is the fact that the EFL, although there is a governing body -  are actually made up of the member teams
We know that *certain* other members have it in for us (mentioning no Gibsons) but what must the other members think when they see how we're being treated? The precedent is being set that the EFL can approve something but then at an unspecified point in the future, change their minds and seek to punish clubs. 
Surely no other members want that? Surely they all want a fair and consistently applied set of clear rules
 

Agree - lots of good points in there
What I keep coming back to is the fact that the EFL, although there is a governing body -  are actually made up of the member teams
We know that *certain* other members have it in for us (mentioning no Gibsons) but what must the other members think when they see how we're being treated? The precedent is being set that the EFL can approve something but then at an unspecified point in the future, change their minds and seek to punish clubs. 
Surely no other members want that? Surely they all want a fair and consistently applied set of clear rules
 

So we can all decide if Hancock made a good decision or not?

It certainly feels like someone has it in for him. How many people have access to Westminster private office CCTV?!
Mind you Bojo is on shaky ground if boffing someone who isn't your wife, but who you are giving public money too is seen to be a sackable offence..

And there we have a classic example of capitalism. The people who do all the work get crumbs while the bosses get all the rewards.

It's only "being overwhelmed" because stupid people still can't work out what the initials A&E stand for. Why would A&E be the first port of call for kids with a high temperature FFS.

I must admit occasionally I've finished washing my hands before the full second verse of "happy birthday". 

We're right to be cautious about following up the long term effects, given how quickly it was developed, but this is all clearly bad science being twisted by the media to fuel the debates that fund them
Given that most women in their 40s will have had the vaccine, and most women in their 40s start to see changes in their periods anyway as the menopause approaches - 4000 reports out of however many million women jabbed is just noise
We should only really be concerned about looking for trending in side-effects that pose a serious health threat IMO
 
 

We're right to be cautious about following up the long term effects, given how quickly it was developed, but this is all clearly bad science being twisted by the media to fuel the debates that fund them
Given that most women in their 40s will have had the vaccine, and most women in their 40s start to see changes in their periods anyway as the menopause approaches - 4000 reports out of however many million women jabbed is just noise
We should only really be concerned about looking for trending in side-effects that pose a serious health threat IMO
 
 

Exactly - that's why I was making the point that I see the obvious contradiction and therefore it's not an easy choice
Even when I try to be the voice of reason I get shouted at! ?
 
 

I'm not entirely sure I follow what you're berating me for. 
are you saying that the push is being driven by some other nefarious agenda to simply make profits for big pharma?
I'd say that's a happy (for big pharma) side effect rather than the global agenda
 
 

mate - please can you stop just trying to have a dig at me for everything I say - I was trying to make a reasonable response to Max's post
There is no need for you to act like this. 
 

One final one, totally in context but showing the fundamental problem with entrenched positions, demonstrating why further participation in this thread is utterly futile...

It's really not.