Leeds Ram

Nice to get a relatively positive article for a change. 
I know what Tom has been through, having lost both my parents as a teenager; glad I didn't have to mourn and live though my mistakes in the public gaze.
I so want him to succeed as captain and help Derby to better times. 
Good luck, Tom.

Yeah, I guess it's difficult isn't it to apply the standard evenly. If someone says something a bit silly and even aggressive about other fans as the OP did last night (and has had a habit of doing tbh) then I think a bit of playful teasing and reigning in is fair enough. I've said a few silly things on here in the past and had the mick taken out of me now and again, ditto with the reigning in.   I guess if it got further than that into the mean spirited or nasty then I'd stop it but it's not always easy where to draw that line. 

Yeah I get that in fairness and I wouldn't want anyone to feel unwelcome or that they were being unfairly maligned. 

I know where you're coming from, but one person's taking the mick is another person hurtful remarks. #COYR

I didn't see any posts that were directly mean at the OP Roy,  more just taking the mick really out of what was a bit of a silly and aggressive OP who then made at least one more very silly remark towards myself. But I didn't see all of it so it could have gotten nasty and I didn't see it. 

I didn't see any posts that were directly mean at the OP Roy,  more just taking the mick really out of what was a bit of a silly and aggressive OP who then made at least one more very silly remark towards myself. But I didn't see all of it so it could have gotten nasty and I didn't see it. 

was this the Rooney snobbery thread? I didn't see all of it but up to what I saw I just thought it was a bit of good fun really 

He is a very intelligent player agree with that but think you're wrong about his technical ability. From memory he had good close control, a strong ability to dribble, a  good pass and an ability to strike the ball. Add in his excellent vision which is how you get the assists like you saw against wolves. 

I’d argue it’s his intelligence that prevented him from showing how technically gifted he is. He’s probably the best dribbler I’ve seen for Derby but never really got a chance to show it other than in odd flashes and Istanhull.

I can imagine some issues are harder to diagnose than others, like myself I could appear to be perfectly normal at my worst, laugh any issues of and pass an assessment in flying colours. 
But he wouldn't and I'm very surprised he's still allowed to walk the streets having been recently arrested for punching a barmaid. 10 minutes with him is all you need, I just can't understand how he made it through a police interview. Less paperwork maybe but he accepted a caution and was on his way.
I wasn't going to do this, but here goes.
- He believes his mum is not his real mum, she lives out in America.
- He believes his brother and sister in law are both dead, doesn't believe it's them when he sees them.
- He believes his deceased uncle is Marc Jacobs.
- He says he's off to live in America to be a fashion designer.
- With his fashion designer aspirations he's wearing outfits that in his words, make him stand out, be different. He's nailed that as he's going out in a woman's ball gown one day, jumpers as trousers the next with boxer shorts on his head. We saw him walking the other day and he was in a bright green 70s outfit, flares, platforms, flowery shirt the lot. 
- He's punched his downstairs neighbour in the face, banging on the floor at all hours shouting profanity at her. She's getting on a bit and so nice that she hasn't reported him to the Police as understands he has issues, but we've now told her this isn't helping.
- His mum and dad brought him a washing machine for Christmas that he wanted, claimed someone had broke in and stole it but his neighbour has told us he took it out on the street, left a note on saying free to a good home. His neighbour downstairs tried to bring it back in for him, that's when he punched her as they had a bit of a altercation. 
- Got rid of his internet as he believed the whole street was using it, when he turned it off he could hear kids screaming because they couldn't get online.
- He believes someone has been breaking in and taking his clothes and medication, ended up dropping bags of clothes off at ours to protect.
- Turned up at 5.30am Sunday morninng at his mums, the mum he doesn't even believe is his, as claimed his handbag had been stolen, inside was his keys, phone and wallet. His mum had to bail him out £260 to get a locksmith out to change the locks.
There is probably tons more that we don't know of, but as you can see he needs help to get back on his meds. 
Whilst typing this the ambulance service rang to say he's not in, neighbour said he had just gone out. Police didn't show to assist and they can't break in to his flat as he's not there. Kinda back to square one again, waiting for an incident to happen at home where we can call the non emergency ambulance again, but 111 right now are so busy, I had to wait 20 minutes to get through, then you're on the phone for another 20 minutes before they despatch an ambulance which takes time to get there. All in all you're looking between an hour and half and two hours but he could be long gone by then. He's in and out apparently all hours. 
 
 

Just scrapped a long post to write a more brief and to the point without all the gory details post.
Leanne, my fiancés brother suffers from paranoid schizophrenia, we believe he's been off his meds now the all of this year. He's rapidly declined to the point where we are seriously concerned.
This is where I cut all the gory details out.
Leanne's mum and dad are old, not really capable of getting him the help he needs so I've stepped in. He's been sectioned before and I believe he needs to be sectioned again for his and others safety but it's so hard, reminds me of the trouble I had to get a doctor out to see me when I was really suffering with anxiety and couldn't leave the house, they all insisted I came into the surgery.
I've rang the mental health place where he was sectioned previously, couldn't discuss him with me, patient confidentiality, understandable, will you talk to his parents? No as he's an adult. Basically the only way they would section him is if he volunteers to come in, or is brought in by the police or ambulance service.
So I contact the non emergency police where I'm told they have to be called when he is in the middle of an act that is taking place, I should call the non emergency ambulance instead for general concerns.
I ring the non emergency ambulance where I'm told the same as the police, they don't do general welfare checks and need an incident to be active to be called out.  
In fairness she bent the rules slightly, made a telephone appointment with his GP and directed the call to me, the GP could either decline or accept the request.
This morning his GP did ring me, initially asking for him but I explained what had happened, he wouldn't discuss him or his medical records, again understandable, but would listen to my concerns. He did and after a lengthy call of pouring out all the gory details was told he will try and organise a mental health crisis team to go and assess him, but this could take a week and would only take place if he lets them in. They can't force their way in.
Now this is unlikely to happen, he thinks he's perfectly normal but he's not. Quick example, went to Hull, wanted to experience homelessness, ended up throwing lateral flow tests round the city centre shouting you're all going to die, before at 2am getting a taxi home for £120. 
Anyway, I get a call this morning from his mum, his neighbour has rang her to say he's banging and screaming and put a notice on his door saying don't knock, funeral taking place. I ask if this is taking place right now, it is, so I've got him.
Rang the police, sorry no can do, doesn't sound like there is any immediate threat to his or others life. Call the council to make a noise complaint or ring the non emergency ambulance if you think he needs an assessment.
Getting frustrated by this point I ring the non emergency ambulance and they are despatching an ambulance with police assistance, filing it as potential suicide and threat of violence saying she has made it impossible for the police not to break in if he refuses to open the door and be assessed.
Also made sure the neighbour was told of what's about to happen, please stay in as they may want to talk to you. The neighbour lives downstairs, it's a terraced house split into 2 flats, he's upstairs.
Maybe it's because I'm close to the situation, I feel more can be done, and they are following the correct procedure, but I can't agree that we need to get to a stage where his or another person's life is at risk before they will respond.
Spend 10 minutes with him wearing a jumper as trousers, boxers on his head as a bandana and you will realise that he's not mentally stable and having been beat up a couple of times in the last few weeks, is it going to take a stabbing or something worse to actually get help.
This still turned out to be a lengthy post cutting out all the details. Needs to be more support and easier for someone to get help out to someone with mental health issues. Really pisses me off that they don't appear to be taken seriously yet when it's 2021.

Indeed it is! ? I don't get the argument you're using in the first paragraph. 100% of mildly or less infectious people is less dangerous than 90% mildly infectious and 10% highly infectious. So by not being vaccinated you're still posing a greater threat of passing it on. 

I mean I've not seen the data on the anti vaxxers for this compared to others. Anecdotally, I have been given leaflets by corona antivaxxers that use the same arguments as antivaxxers in general. The anti vaxxer protests also have a similar vibe that anecdotally make me question the distinction tbh. 

Chris witty i don't think said 40% of the deaths are amongst the double vaccinated population. He said 40% of hospitalisations and the hospitalisations are in general much less severe, needing a bit of oxygen for instance as opposed to being on icu. 

spot on

I like to be alone out on a walk listening to my podcasts. Bliss!

It's really bad as I'm just as guilty as this as others (especially on the forum ? ) but people moaning all the time to me when I'm sitting down trying to work, reading or relax. But, I also find too much of people's company gets on my nerves, I need plenty of alone time really. 

Yes, we'll agree to disagree ? I'll just add a couple of responses to your arguments if that's okay ? 

On the bodily integrity argument that assumes that this action is merely a self regarding action but not getting a vaccination can be argued is really an other regarding action especially in the application of transmission of the disease. For example, if i was to drink some orange juice that only really affects me fundamentally. But if I went out with a cold that likely affects others and can't be considered in the same manner. So, bodily integrity can definitely be applied to things like hair, tattoo's etc. but it's a harder case to measure in regards to public health measures like vaccination in terms of restrictions on your person. 

Has there ever been a vaccine with long term severe side effects? Now of course experts can be wrong, they're wrong all the time but with expert consensus at this level I think it's right to trust the pharmaceutical companies, the scientists, the governments and the world health organisation that these vaccines are safe for us to take. 

At the moment the death toll is relatively low, if we vaccinate to herd immunity levels it will become an endemic not a pandemic. It's currently not a particularly deadly virus for a lot of categories of people, however there is always the possibility of a more deadly mutation. In America 99% of the deaths occurring are in those that haven't had the vaccine as stated in the article I linked. The anti vaxxer sentiment isn't just limited to covid but in certain parts of the developed world is leading to more cases of measles and mumps for example because parents don't want their children vaccinated against these diseases either. So this also cannot be seen in isolation. 

I think the mistake you're making is the assumption getting the vaccine is simply an argument to have. The claim that personal choice overrides public health in a pandemic is not a claim I'm necessarily inclined towards in all areas. It's certainly not as cut and dry as you're making it out to be. As citizens not only do we have rights but we have duties to the state and to each other.  The government has a mandate to protect the lives of its citizens in emergencies such as wartime or a pandemic which is why I've defended the general package of emergency measures in the past (along with research that has a clear basis in fact that if a state legislates to limit  emergency measures they likely won't be extended into times of normalcy).
It might well be that covid passes overstep the mark and gets challenged in the courts but as seen in continental Europe sometimes the state has to apply pressure to ensure citizens do get vaccinated.  But for me, unless you have a condition that prevents you from taking the vaccine then people should really be getting it unless you are willing to regularly take covid tests and self isolate if you have a positive case and wear masks. Vaccination is the only viable route out of lockdown and keeping serious hospitalisations and deaths at a low level. It also could harm you in the end. https://www.al.com/news/2021/07/im-sorry-but-its-too-late-alabama-doctor-on-treating-unvaccinated-dying-covid-patients.html

 I don't think this is akin to other forms of measures where the utility of denying choice is not necessarily outweighed by public health benefits. I know you and other poster's have strong opinions on this subject and I understand that. However,  personally I don't think personal choice is necessarily always the primary consideration in public policy. Sometimes, the state needs to apply legislative and social pressure to achieve desired ends. I think vaccination in this circumstance meets this threshold tbh. 

I think the mistake you're making is the assumption getting the vaccine is simply an argument to have. The claim that personal choice overrides public health in a pandemic is not a claim I'm necessarily inclined towards in all areas. It's certainly not as cut and dry as you're making it out to be. As citizens not only do we have rights but we have duties to the state and to each other.  The government has a mandate to protect the lives of its citizens in emergencies such as wartime or a pandemic which is why I've defended the general package of emergency measures in the past (along with research that has a clear basis in fact that if a state legislates to limit  emergency measures they likely won't be extended into times of normalcy).
It might well be that covid passes overstep the mark and gets challenged in the courts but as seen in continental Europe sometimes the state has to apply pressure to ensure citizens do get vaccinated.  But for me, unless you have a condition that prevents you from taking the vaccine then people should really be getting it unless you are willing to regularly take covid tests and self isolate if you have a positive case and wear masks. Vaccination is the only viable route out of lockdown and keeping serious hospitalisations and deaths at a low level. It also could harm you in the end. https://www.al.com/news/2021/07/im-sorry-but-its-too-late-alabama-doctor-on-treating-unvaccinated-dying-covid-patients.html

 I don't think this is akin to other forms of measures where the utility of denying choice is not necessarily outweighed by public health benefits. I know you and other poster's have strong opinions on this subject and I understand that. However,  personally I don't think personal choice is necessarily always the primary consideration in public policy. Sometimes, the state needs to apply legislative and social pressure to achieve desired ends. I think vaccination in this circumstance meets this threshold tbh. 

I think the mistake you're making is the assumption getting the vaccine is simply an argument to have. The claim that personal choice overrides public health in a pandemic is not a claim I'm necessarily inclined towards in all areas. It's certainly not as cut and dry as you're making it out to be. As citizens not only do we have rights but we have duties to the state and to each other.  The government has a mandate to protect the lives of its citizens in emergencies such as wartime or a pandemic which is why I've defended the general package of emergency measures in the past (along with research that has a clear basis in fact that if a state legislates to limit  emergency measures they likely won't be extended into times of normalcy).
It might well be that covid passes overstep the mark and gets challenged in the courts but as seen in continental Europe sometimes the state has to apply pressure to ensure citizens do get vaccinated.  But for me, unless you have a condition that prevents you from taking the vaccine then people should really be getting it unless you are willing to regularly take covid tests and self isolate if you have a positive case and wear masks. Vaccination is the only viable route out of lockdown and keeping serious hospitalisations and deaths at a low level. It also could harm you in the end. https://www.al.com/news/2021/07/im-sorry-but-its-too-late-alabama-doctor-on-treating-unvaccinated-dying-covid-patients.html

 I don't think this is akin to other forms of measures where the utility of denying choice is not necessarily outweighed by public health benefits. I know you and other poster's have strong opinions on this subject and I understand that. However,  personally I don't think personal choice is necessarily always the primary consideration in public policy. Sometimes, the state needs to apply legislative and social pressure to achieve desired ends. I think vaccination in this circumstance meets this threshold tbh. 

I think the mistake you're making is the assumption getting the vaccine is simply an argument to have. The claim that personal choice overrides public health in a pandemic is not a claim I'm necessarily inclined towards in all areas. It's certainly not as cut and dry as you're making it out to be. As citizens not only do we have rights but we have duties to the state and to each other.  The government has a mandate to protect the lives of its citizens in emergencies such as wartime or a pandemic which is why I've defended the general package of emergency measures in the past (along with research that has a clear basis in fact that if a state legislates to limit  emergency measures they likely won't be extended into times of normalcy).
It might well be that covid passes overstep the mark and gets challenged in the courts but as seen in continental Europe sometimes the state has to apply pressure to ensure citizens do get vaccinated.  But for me, unless you have a condition that prevents you from taking the vaccine then people should really be getting it unless you are willing to regularly take covid tests and self isolate if you have a positive case and wear masks. Vaccination is the only viable route out of lockdown and keeping serious hospitalisations and deaths at a low level. It also could harm you in the end. https://www.al.com/news/2021/07/im-sorry-but-its-too-late-alabama-doctor-on-treating-unvaccinated-dying-covid-patients.html

 I don't think this is akin to other forms of measures where the utility of denying choice is not necessarily outweighed by public health benefits. I know you and other poster's have strong opinions on this subject and I understand that. However,  personally I don't think personal choice is necessarily always the primary consideration in public policy. Sometimes, the state needs to apply legislative and social pressure to achieve desired ends. I think vaccination in this circumstance meets this threshold tbh. 

Oooh that'll be a bit radical for some!

I think the mistake you're making is the assumption getting the vaccine is simply an argument to have. The claim that personal choice overrides public health in a pandemic is not a claim I'm necessarily inclined towards in all areas. It's certainly not as cut and dry as you're making it out to be. As citizens not only do we have rights but we have duties to the state and to each other.  The government has a mandate to protect the lives of its citizens in emergencies such as wartime or a pandemic which is why I've defended the general package of emergency measures in the past (along with research that has a clear basis in fact that if a state legislates to limit  emergency measures they likely won't be extended into times of normalcy).
It might well be that covid passes overstep the mark and gets challenged in the courts but as seen in continental Europe sometimes the state has to apply pressure to ensure citizens do get vaccinated.  But for me, unless you have a condition that prevents you from taking the vaccine then people should really be getting it unless you are willing to regularly take covid tests and self isolate if you have a positive case and wear masks. Vaccination is the only viable route out of lockdown and keeping serious hospitalisations and deaths at a low level. It also could harm you in the end. https://www.al.com/news/2021/07/im-sorry-but-its-too-late-alabama-doctor-on-treating-unvaccinated-dying-covid-patients.html

 I don't think this is akin to other forms of measures where the utility of denying choice is not necessarily outweighed by public health benefits. I know you and other poster's have strong opinions on this subject and I understand that. However,  personally I don't think personal choice is necessarily always the primary consideration in public policy. Sometimes, the state needs to apply legislative and social pressure to achieve desired ends. I think vaccination in this circumstance meets this threshold tbh. 

I think the mistake you're making is the assumption getting the vaccine is simply an argument to have. The claim that personal choice overrides public health in a pandemic is not a claim I'm necessarily inclined towards in all areas. It's certainly not as cut and dry as you're making it out to be. As citizens not only do we have rights but we have duties to the state and to each other.  The government has a mandate to protect the lives of its citizens in emergencies such as wartime or a pandemic which is why I've defended the general package of emergency measures in the past (along with research that has a clear basis in fact that if a state legislates to limit  emergency measures they likely won't be extended into times of normalcy).
It might well be that covid passes overstep the mark and gets challenged in the courts but as seen in continental Europe sometimes the state has to apply pressure to ensure citizens do get vaccinated.  But for me, unless you have a condition that prevents you from taking the vaccine then people should really be getting it unless you are willing to regularly take covid tests and self isolate if you have a positive case and wear masks. Vaccination is the only viable route out of lockdown and keeping serious hospitalisations and deaths at a low level. It also could harm you in the end. https://www.al.com/news/2021/07/im-sorry-but-its-too-late-alabama-doctor-on-treating-unvaccinated-dying-covid-patients.html

 I don't think this is akin to other forms of measures where the utility of denying choice is not necessarily outweighed by public health benefits. I know you and other poster's have strong opinions on this subject and I understand that. However,  personally I don't think personal choice is necessarily always the primary consideration in public policy. Sometimes, the state needs to apply legislative and social pressure to achieve desired ends. I think vaccination in this circumstance meets this threshold tbh. 

I think the mistake you're making is the assumption getting the vaccine is simply an argument to have. The claim that personal choice overrides public health in a pandemic is not a claim I'm necessarily inclined towards in all areas. It's certainly not as cut and dry as you're making it out to be. As citizens not only do we have rights but we have duties to the state and to each other.  The government has a mandate to protect the lives of its citizens in emergencies such as wartime or a pandemic which is why I've defended the general package of emergency measures in the past (along with research that has a clear basis in fact that if a state legislates to limit  emergency measures they likely won't be extended into times of normalcy).
It might well be that covid passes overstep the mark and gets challenged in the courts but as seen in continental Europe sometimes the state has to apply pressure to ensure citizens do get vaccinated.  But for me, unless you have a condition that prevents you from taking the vaccine then people should really be getting it unless you are willing to regularly take covid tests and self isolate if you have a positive case and wear masks. Vaccination is the only viable route out of lockdown and keeping serious hospitalisations and deaths at a low level. It also could harm you in the end. https://www.al.com/news/2021/07/im-sorry-but-its-too-late-alabama-doctor-on-treating-unvaccinated-dying-covid-patients.html

 I don't think this is akin to other forms of measures where the utility of denying choice is not necessarily outweighed by public health benefits. I know you and other poster's have strong opinions on this subject and I understand that. However,  personally I don't think personal choice is necessarily always the primary consideration in public policy. Sometimes, the state needs to apply legislative and social pressure to achieve desired ends. I think vaccination in this circumstance meets this threshold tbh. 

A Wigan season ticket would do the trick.