Petemcc64

I can't seem to edit my post, but I will outline to you why Starmer has perverted the course of justice and why he won't be prosecuted. His speech, which I will paraphrase because I couldn't be bothered going back and transcribing it was : They will be found, they will be charged, they will be remanded and they will be sent to prison. Now, I don't have a problem with that if it's somone who chucked missiles at the police, or tried to burn down a hotel, etc, because at the end of the day they are charges of physical violence . A large number of people were imprisoned for non-violent social media posts, or merely being at the scene of trouble, or using objectionable words. In a vast majority of those cases, the correct charge, if any, would have been a Section 5 POA, 1986, which does not carry a prison sentence. Instead people were charged under sections 4, or if present, section 3, both of which carry prison sentences. For all but the most serious cases, there is a presumption towards bail, and by serious we are talking murder, rape etc. The only reasons to deny bail would be if the defendant was likely not to appear, or may commit further ofences . Non-violent offenders, arrested for hurty words should have been given bail, instead they were refused bail and charged with the most serious offence possible, one that would attract a Crown Court appearance and prison time. Being informed that pleading non-guilty would result in being on remand for up to a year, lead to coercive guilty pleas, and of course the over-stretched legal aid was hardly in a position to do their job properly. Then we have the judges. Gone are the days of good, honest judges with no political alliance, now they are all so far left they have fallen off the edge. Add this all up and someone who prior to Starmer's speech would at the maximum have received a caution, is now serving prison time. Why will Starmer not be charged? Well, he was the head of the CPS, it's a big tree-hugging, leftie boys club, and all the DPP would say is"No". Before this it wouldn't even get off the ground, as who is going to physically arrest the Prime Minister? You see, socialist views don't take into account reality. Do you think some forward thinking Chief Constable would send in an armed response team to take out Starmer's protection detail to arrest him? This is what is called reality. Finally, football hooligans? What century are you from?

I disagree with almost everything you say. Rioters are not mostly right wing, in fact if you look at the UK, and Australia and France, it id predominantly the left, groups like Antifa and BLM who are rioters. Having been in the system, which I doubt you were, I do understand a fair trial, so here how it goes: There are 2 options, put him on trial, or drop all charges. They could not possibly drop all charges, because then there really would be riots, and a lynch mob. They can put him on trial and a jury would find him guilty, they appeal, another jury finds him guilty, etc. Many, many defendants have their faces, background, inside leg measurement blasted across the media. Like I said before, the only way he wasn't getting found guilty was if he was dead. You are clearly a socialist, typically with no grasp of reality. As for a different posters comment, this murderer would not be found guilty by the court of public opinion, he would have been found guilty by being caught red-handed. again, in the world of socialism, reality fdoesn't have a chance.

I'm not being disrespectful but you are obviously an online Guardian reader and watch the BBC. There were rioters who were just pieces of s###, just waiting for any excuse to have a go at the police (I am ex-police) and damage property just because they can. There were also a large number of concerned citizens who were very pissed off at being lied to. Now Stasi Starmer labelled them all 'right wing'. Let me tell you, with 19 years in the criminal justice scheme in 2 countries, including 5.5 years as a prison officer in Australia, I have never come across a piece of S### rioter or thug who was anywhere near right wing, indeed if anything they were super left. So Starmer mislabeled common criminals as right wing and bundled in concerned citizens, just labelling everything 'right wing extremism'. He then made a statement that people would be arrested, refused bail and put before the court. This ended up in a number of people who were caught up in non-violent incidents, being charged with the top-tier offence and being scared into pleading guilty for fear of spending months and months on remand. That to me was a clear attempt by Starmer to pervert the course of justice. As for prejudicing any trial, the only way he would be found not guilty would be if he was already dead. He was at the scene, he was witnessed by many people killing and maiming, he was caught with the weapon, there will have been forensic evidence all over him, there is nothing that could compromise any trial. Like I said I have been around the system a while and know what is what. That was just Starmer trying to dig his way out of the hole he dug for himself. Now, seeing as you have an opinion, perhaps you could tell me the legal grounds by which his trial could be compromised if any and all information was released? Thank you.

Interesting, considering there is a positive correlation between more vaccines and more immune escape. Perhaps this should have been included from the paper: Conclusions The cumulative incidence of PASC during the first year after SARS-CoV-2 infection decreased over the course of the pandemic, but the risk of PASC remained substantial even among vaccinated persons who had SARS-CoV-2 infection in the omicron era. (Supported by the Department of Veterans Affairs.)

why would there be any cardiac harm from the actual virus? ACE2 receptors, believed to be the main method of cellular infiltration, are in many tissues, but 'COVID' is a respiratory virus. For sure, anything that enters the respiratory system is nanometres from the circulatory system, but typically, respiratory viruses stick to the respiratory system. There is so much more involved than just the receptors, for example the pH, so don't assume because 'it' can, it will. On the other hand, a lipid nano particle with an encapsulated mRNA sequence, circulating in the blood , will potentially merge with any cell in the body, possibly allowing the encapsulated mRNA into the cell. There are no accurate data on the number of people who were 'saved' by the mRNA, or any other vaccine, only mathematical projections. How can it be demonstrated that the jab saved someone as opposed to 500 million years of immune systems? It can't. I have a Masters in Public Health, which I admit I undertook because a work colleague at the start of COVID said I knew nothing, despite being a biochemist, who had played with transposons and retrotransposons, things 99.99% of people will never have heard of, and Phages, so I know about the transfer of genetic material. I was also a nurse for 15 years. Various health officers decided they knew what was what, even if their discipline had nothing to do with virology or immunology, but they didn't, they were clueless. They all decided to follow the Chinese model of control, and the WHO's dictate of vaccinate, vaccinate, vaccinate, despite being told that a systemic vaccine against a respiratory virus was useless. Then came the absolutely unbelievable fable that vaccination would prevent transmission. I could go on, and on, but the bottom line is that not only were the 'vaccinations' unecessary, they were not safe, not effective, and have caused immense harm, and possibly more harm to come.

I have no need for a lawyer, perhaps the owner of the condo I am in does.

No, if certain masks are worn correctly and consistently they may be effective in reducing transmission. Even that is a stretch of logic from my analysis of the paper and its sources. I was going to do a critique of the paper and its sources, but it would amount to many pages and nobody would read it, therefore it would be a complete waste of my time. Mask-wearing is akin to wearing an amulet, you either believe in its efficacy or not. There was never any evidence for their efficacy and this paper sets out with the hypothesis that mask-wearing was effective, using some very poor observational studies as part of the meta-analysis. as someone who has been involved in research, Cochrane Reviews are very useful as an overview of the evidence, though such reviews are really as reliable as retrospective population studies, unless the source material is sound. Give me a Cochrane Study with 10 RCTs and I'll take that over 1000 observational studies. Probably the weakest form of evidence is anecdotal evidence, however when you consider mask mandates did nothing to prevent entire populations being infected, and from my own observational studies in a hospital environment, didn't stop medical staff or patients being infected, then you really need to question whether real-world scenarios fit in with cherry-picked studies. as an aside, a major confounder is that many people just did not become infected. I personally know of an Anaesthetist who asked his so-called positive daughter to cough into his face a number of times a day over a period of a week. All hospital workers had to do a daily test before starting work, and he was never positive. Had he worn an N95 24/7, not even removing it to eat, one could conclude that the mask prevented infection, but he didn't, and he wasn't infected as far as testing was concerned. The bottom line here is for any study that claims masks have any efficacy, there has to be a control group within the population that is measured, against the other population. Like I said, it's more of a belief than an actual non-pharmaceutical intervention, and seriously, you have to question the psyche of anyone who habitually wears a mask, post all the scaremongering, because they are scared of getting an infection with a kill rate so low that the numbers are meaningless, especially for young, healthy people.

I echo the other posters' queries about jurisdiction. What has been provided so far does not mention the hotel name, which I assume is somewhere in pages 2-7. There has to be some kind of Thai court order that has not been supplied, otherwise anyone in charge would have ignored the order and there would be no way of enforcing it. The fact that someone in authority knew in advance suggests there was some Thai jurisdictional decision, we just haven't been made aware of it. This restraining order was filed in Feb 2024, and if the Centara Azure was mentioned then, why did it take so long for action to be taken, or is that because of an application to a Thai court? At the end of the day, the restraining order from Texas means absolutely nothing in Thailand, so why is this all we are being fed? I care because I live in the condos, though only renting, but the hotel is likely to be closed for years and may not open again. Where will that leave to condos, which rely on the hotel for the facilities? I have attached a notice received from the Juristic office

As a resident of the condos, I can tell you that I was unaware of the closure until I read about it on a Facebook forum yesterday. There was no prior warning, and the only notice that had been posted recently was to tell condo residents that the hotel lobby was for hotel guests only. I did however notice a latch had been put on the sliding door from the pool area, and condos, to reception. At the time I wondered why, but it is now apparent it was in preparation for the closure. I did not believe the post I read yesterday as I had returned from an overnight stay via the car park, however looking out my window I noticed the pool was empty and the hotel block had no lights. A check revealed tape across the exit to the lobby. It remains to be seen how this will affect condo residents. The gym, sauna and steam room are closed, apparently because power from them comes from the hotel. There are no sunbeds out but the pool pump appears to be working. I'm just hoping this gets resolved soon, though I doubt it!