- Popular Post
.jpg.ff3e4234cb78708eb2581c2fc1e46cd9.jpg)
7by7
-
Posts
24,291 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Downloads
Posts posted by 7by7
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
57 minutes ago, nauseus said:Not what your link says.
It's behind a paywall, so all I can see is the headline "UK exports to EU slump as Brexit hits trade."
So what does it say about our international trade?
Remember that pre Brexit, the EU was by far our largest single trade partner.
-
4
-
13 hours ago, KhaoYai said:
<snip> Sorry (7by7), I didn't get chance to read the link you provided at the time.
Yet even though you hadn't read it, you dismissed the information contained therein!
On 3/13/2021 at 11:41 AM, KhaoYai said:<snip> I could easily counter your link with one with an opposing view
The rest of your post is about the different approaches between the UK and EU over the approval and introduction of this particular vaccine. The EU preferring a more cautious approach. Who was right? Only time will tell.
Back to the actual topic of this thread: COVID-19: AstraZeneca defends its vaccine after more countries suspend its use over clotting concerns
QuoteA new report from the Norwegian Medicines Agency reveals serious blood clotting events in four adults who had the COVID-19 jab.
Note those countries health authorities are acting on concerns expressed by the Norwegian Medicines Agency; Norway is not an EU member.
The EU's EMA have said "There is no indication that the Oxford-AstraZeneca Covid-19 vaccine is linked to an increased risk of blood clots." (Source).
Yet you are still attempting to say the EU are using this issue as some sort of petty revenge for Brexit!
19 hours ago, KhaoYai said:<snip> I don't think its possible to completely separate this matter from the worsening relationship between the EU and Brexit.
-
2
-
-
The team of Murray Walker and James Hunt reunited at last.
Here is a clip from their last commentary together.
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
@robblok, to be fair to the poor dears, they do try. Three recent examples:-
The 1,000 jobs coming to the City of London from the EU. Ignoring the 7,600 jobs that have gone the other way.
All the trade deals negotiated by Truss. Ignoring the facts that most of those are simply roll overs of the ones we had when an EU member or, like the Japanese one, the crumbs that the EU didn't want.
The UK unilaterally approving the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine. Ignoring the fact that this had nothing to do with Brexit because we were still subject to all EU rules and regulations at the time and this was allowed under those rules and regulations.
-
6
-
- Popular Post
3 hours ago, GrandPapillon said:Love the Guardian disclaimer when you click on their stories ????
For 2021, we commit to another year of high-impact reporting that can counter misinformation and offer an authoritative, trustworthy source of news for everyone. With no shareholders or billionaire owner, we set our own agenda and provide truth-seeking journalism that’s free from commercial and political influence. When it’s never mattered more, we can investigate and challenge without fear or favour.
Unlike many others, we have maintained our choice: to keep Guardian journalism open for all readers, regardless of where they live or what they can afford to pay. We do this because we believe in information equality, where everyone deserves to read accurate news and thoughtful analysis. Greater numbers of people are staying well-informed on world events, and being inspired to take meaningful action.
In the last year alone, we offered readers a comprehensive, international perspective on critical events – from the Black Lives Matter protests, to the US presidential election, Brexit, and the ongoing pandemic. We enhanced our reputation for urgent, powerful reporting on the climate emergency, and made the decision to reject advertising from fossil fuel companies, divest from the oil and gas industries, and set a course to achieve net zero emissions by 2030.
If there were ever a time to join us, it is now. You can power Guardian journalism and help sustain our future. Support the Guardian from as little as €1 – it only takes a minute. If you can, please consider supporting us with a regular amount each month. Thank you.
You'd prefer them to be behind a paywall like, for example, The Telegraph, Times, New Statesman?
-
3
-
7 hours ago, sanuk711 said:
So a police constable murdered and chopped up Sarah Everard then.
It's Definitely P.C gone mad I tell you.........................????
You find the murder and mutilation of a young woman a suitable subject for jokes?
Shame on you.
-
2
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
46 minutes ago, robblok said:<snip>So if your so convinced that its good give us some good news articles or thinktank projections that Brexit was good. I asked this many times and so far NONE of your lot has ever given me anything. So all the bad news is fake but you cant find anything positive.
You're not the only one who has repeatedly asked Brexiteers for something, anything, positive about Brexit.
Strange that none of them can ever provide anything; not!
-
3
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
8 hours ago, vogie said:Probably from the same poll.
The survey, conducted for The Scotsman by Savanta ComRes, found that 45% of respondents said they would vote Yes if the vote was held tomorrow, while 47% said they would vote No and 8% said they did not know.
When unsure voters were excluded, 51% said they would vote in favour of the union while 49% would vote for independence.
The poll in The Scotsman indicated the SNP is no longer on course for a majority in Holryood elections in May.
It found that the SNP would return 64 MSPs, missing out on a majority by one seat.
As I always say, the only poll which counts is the one at the ballot box.
If, @vogie, the parties supporting independence win a majority in the forthcoming election, will you finally agree that the Scottish people deserve another chance to decide whether or not to remain a part of the UK?
Given your oft repeated claim to be a believer in democracy, surely it would be hypocritical not to.
-
3
-
8 hours ago, vogie said:
<snip>And I might suggest that most of the Scots agree with my views much to the consternation of the SNP.
If that is so, then you have nothing to fear from IndyRef 2!
So why are you so against giving the Scottish people the choice?
-
2
-
-
On 3/13/2021 at 11:04 AM, vogie said:On 3/13/2021 at 10:21 AM, 7by7 said:
The will of the people of Scotland as expressed in 2014 was to remain in a UK which was a member of the EU.
That UK no longer exists.
Why are you so afraid of giving the people of Scotland the choice of remaining in the new UK or not?
Scotland was never in the EU!
When did I ever say that Scotland was?
Certainly not in the post you quoted!
I repeat, yet again, in the hope that this time you'll respond to what I actually say and ask rather than remarking on something I never said.
The will of the people of Scotland as expressed in 2014 was to remain in a UK which was a member of the EU.
That UK no longer exists.
Why are you so afraid of giving the people of Scotland the choice of remaining in the new UK or not?
-
2
-
-
On 3/13/2021 at 11:41 AM, KhaoYai said:On 3/13/2021 at 10:38 AM, 7by7 said:
The facts prove it has nothing to do with EU sour grapes.
Many will disagree.
I could easily counter your link with one with an opposing view
The information contained in the link I posted and quotes from same are not anyone's opinion or view; they are facts.
On 3/13/2021 at 11:41 AM, KhaoYai said:but we have both made our positions clear and I'm not prepared to turn this into an EU/Brexit circus.
Then why did you attempt to so do?
On 3/12/2021 at 1:34 PM, KhaoYai said:It is about vaccines but with respect, do you not think that some of the EU's 'problems' with the AZ vaccine are Brexit related?
-
2
-
-
16 minutes ago, KhaoYai said:
As I have already said - I believe this matter goes far deeper than the latest blood clot matter. The problems began when the EU claimed that the UK was getting more favourable treatment from Astra Zeneca. That wasn't individual countries, that was the EU as a whole.
We are all in this together and we should all learn from each other. Political differences and sour grapes should be set aside.
The facts prove it has nothing to do with EU sour grapes.
The manufacturers told the EU that due to production problems they could only supply less than half of the contracted doses; despite the EU paying AstraZeneca hundreds of millions of euros in advance in order to expedite production ahead of the vaccine's official approval.
Meanwhile, despite their claimed production problems, we were receiving all of our contracted supplies from the company's factory in Germany.
Little wonder that the EU were annoyed!
See Fact check: Is AstraZeneca in breach of its EU contract?
-
2
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
21 minutes ago, vogie said:The will of the people in Scotland is to remain in our union, the will of the SNP I don't give two hoots for.
The will of the people of Scotland as expressed in 2014 was to remain in a UK which was a member of the EU.
That UK no longer exists.
Why are you so afraid of giving the people of Scotland the choice of remaining in the new UK or not?
-
3
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
8 minutes ago, vogie said:I had nothing to fear from a "peoples vote" either, another sneaky way to ignore the democratic decision our country voted on, "I am a democrat" ????????????
The forum's archives do not go back that far, so I have no proof of what I am about to say.
After the 2016 referendum I accepted the result; albeit reluctantly.
It was only when the realities of Brexit, dismissed as 'Project Fear' by Leave, became more and more apparent did I join calls for the so called 'people's vote' on the terms of any withdrawal agreement; whether it be May's or Johnson's.
If you "had nothing to fear from a "peoples vote"" how would holding one have been a "sneaky way to ignore the democratic decision our country voted on?"
You may also argue that the 2019 general election was such a vote on Johnson's WA; but remember that only 43% voted for Johnson and his deal.
In Scotland the SNP in their manifesto called for another independence referendum. They received 45% of the vote. If 43% is a mandate for Johnson's WA, why is 45% not a mandate for an independence referendum in Scotland?
If you are so confident that the result of any such referendum would be to remain part of the UK, how is holding it a "sneaky way to ignore the democratic decision" Scotland voted on in 2014?
-
3
-
13 minutes ago, KhaoYai said:
And you sir, should read posts properly before posting blurb. If you read my post fully you will note I state the politicians are going against their own (the EU's) medical regulators advice.
There's no propaganda in what I wrote, its all factual. I accept that not all EU members have banned the AZ vaccine but the EU is a group is it not? A UNION? The EU's problems with the AZ vaccine go back further than this latest matter relating to blood clots - you may remember their spat with AZ which they caused themselves by ordering the vaccine late. They also approved it later than the UK.
You write that Germany hasn't banned the AZ vaccine over the blood clot matter, maybe not but they were one of the main reasons for the public's suspicion of the AZ vaccine because of their previous stance on 0ver 65's.
To go further in relation to the EU's 'Union' and its current actions would take us off topic - which the moderators here have made clear, is not allowed.
I have nothing to gain by posting 'propaganda' against the EU - I wanted the UK to remain. However, what I've seen recently in relation to the Pandemic/AZ/Vaccines in general has illustrated to me at least, that the EU is not really a Union, they can't get their act together so individual countries go it alone.
Overall, it seems clear that all of the EU's problems with the AZ vaccine are politically motivated. If you read through this thread and other sources, you will see that having read the reports, many people suspect the same.
I sincerely hope the EU stops this behaviour and gets their vaccination programme going for the sake of their citizens. The world's vaccine manufacturers have done an incredible job at providing effective protection against Covid 19 in record time. Rather than get their lip down because the UK has done far better than them in rolling out their vaccine programme, the EU would be better off learning from it.
I criticise where criticism is due, I have no political allegiance that prevents me from speaking the truth. The UK made a complete mess of their response to the pandemic which has cost thousands of lives. Our Track and Trace programme has been nothing short of a very expensive joke (£37 Billion). However, the UK's vaccination programme so far, has been an outstanding success.
I did read your post, which is why after my quote from the EMA in the linked to article I said "Something you, yourself, admit!"
You chose to exclude that from your quote of my post. Maybe that means you didn't read it?
The politicians in the countries concerned are acting on their own health department's advice; as is their right as sovereign nations; whether they be EU members or the two who are not!
Despite your lengthy self justification, you are trying to blame the EU for something which is patently not their fault.
-
2
-
1
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
1 hour ago, Surelynot said:True...can't imagine there are not strict guidelines/policies covering this stuff.
There are: Engagement and communication Media relations.
Basically, a suspect should not be named prior to charge except for operational reasons, such as aiding in finding and arresting them or because the suspect represents a danger to the public.
Couzens has been charged, so can be named. The woman arrested at the same time has not yet been named because she has been released on bail and not yet been charged with any offence.
If the media discover the name of a suspect prior to charge then the police will neither confirm nor deny. If the media then choose to publish that name, that is their choice.
-
4
-
1
-
- Popular Post
6 hours ago, Tofer said:I've never yet come across a contract that has the word trust used in any of it's vocabulary.
The old ideal of "My word is my bond" sadly is long defunct.
Would you sign any form of contract with someone who has a history of tearing them up, as you suggested, soon after signing them?
If so, you are a fool.
6 hours ago, Tofer said:Further more, if the EU don't sign it, it's null and void.
In which case we have to start on a trade agreement all over again. Which considering the hash Frost made of this one would be no bad thing.
But remember, the Withdrawal Agreement was signed and agreed by both sides over a year ago; and Johnson has since threatened several times to break that!
-
4
-
5 hours ago, vogie said:5 hours ago, Neeranam said:
What are the odds of becoming independent in my lifetime(40ish years)?
About as much chance as me using my rowing machine other than a coat hanger.
Then you have nothing to fear from another referendum!
-
1
-
-
22 minutes ago, Sujo said:
Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie were lucky.
They are the Queen's grandchildren; not great grandchildren.
QuoteThe Queen’s great-grandchildren including Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s son Archie, Princess Eugenie’s son August Brooksbank, Zara Tindall and Peter Phillips children do not possess the title of ‘prince’ or ‘princess’.
Why does Archie not have a title?
Under current guidelines, great-grandchildren of the monarch are not princes or princesses.
The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge's children are princes and a princess. The George because he is in line to the throne, the other two as a gift from the Queen; otherwise they would be Lady Charlotte and Lord Louis
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex's son would have been an Earl, had they not refused it! From the same article
QuoteArchie, who will turn two in May, was entitled to the ‘courtesy title’ Earl of Dumbarton. However, the couple announced after his birth that they had not given him a courtesy title and he would be known as Archie Mountbatten-Windsor.
-
1
-
1
-
-
18 hours ago, KhaoYai said:
It is about vaccines but with respect, do you not think that some of the EU's 'problems' with the AZ vaccine are Brexit related? They firstly complained that the UK was getting more than its fair share of the AZ vaccine and made threats. Then they said there was not enough research to recommend it for over 65's, creating suspicion and generally bad PR about the AZ product.
Now their clinicians have given the AZ vaccine the OK for over 65's we have scare stories from their politicians that the AZ vaccine may be dangerous - even though their own regulator says it should still be used. That seems to be politically motivated to me and I was not a Brexiteer.
In theory, no matter where you live it should be that:
You vote in politicians to run your country.
You take note of what medical experts state in relation to vaccines.
Here we have politicians going against the advice of their own medical experts - considering the above facts and what is happening at the moment, I don't think its possible to completely separate the AZ vaccine and Brexit. Sour grapes come to mind.
You should check the facts before posting propaganda. The EU does not have any problems with the AstraZeneca vaccine: Oxford-AstraZeneca: EU says 'no indication' vaccine linked to clots
QuoteThere is no indication that the Oxford-AstraZeneca Covid-19 vaccine is linked to an increased risk of blood clots, the EU's medicines regulator says.
It said the number of cases in vaccinated people was no higher than in the general population.
Something you, yourself, admit!
You say "In theory, no matter where you live it should be that: You vote in politicians to run your country."
It is the politicians, i.e. the governments, of individual countries who have made the decisions. Seven European countries, all EU members, have suspended use of a particular batch of the virus. Three have suspended all use of it. Of those three, two, Norway and Iceland, are not EU members!
So nine EU members out of 27 have taken some form of suspension. If the EU is controlling this as some sort of pay back for Brexit, what about the other 18? Why aren't the big players, France and Germany, taking part?
You also say "You take note of what medical experts state in relation to vaccines."
As the article says, the above countries' governments have acted on the advice of their own medical experts.
-
2
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
2 hours ago, vogie said:It reminds me of the poster who said I am a unionist but also a democrat, he is so democratic that he won't respect a referendum and he is so much of a unionist, he wants the union to split up
It was I who said that.
I do respect the 2014 referendum result. But as I and others have said many times; the UK which Scotland voted to remain a part of then was a UK which was also a member of the EU. That is no longer true.
As a democrat I believe that such a fundamental change in the UK's status means that Scots should have the opportunity to decide if they want to remain part of this new UK or not.
Surely, considering how much you have posted about your firm belief in democracy over the last four and a half years, you must also believe that they should have the democratic right to decide that for themselves?
Of course, as a unionist I hope that given that opportunity they vote to remain. From your remarks, I guess you do, too.
-
3
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
30 minutes ago, vogie said:Parroting and referring factually to a statement of truth are two different things. What would you call a country that ignores referendums?
The 2014 referendum result was not ignored. Had it been then Scotland would have had independence forced upon it!
-
3
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
16 hours ago, upu2 said:Last year I did look them up but I dont consider them very important at least not to me so I dont bother recording them or remembering them. If I want them I will go on the internet and look them up.
So you don't consider them important; didn't record them and don't remember them.
Yet you still feel qualified to say that Scotland can't meet them!
-
3
-
16 hours ago, Credo said:
At no time did Megan indicate that he was 'entitled' to have a title. The issue being discussed were related to the issue of security for Archie.
Sorry; but you are wrong.
She complained that he wasn't a prince and said protocol meant he was entitled to be one.
QuoteMeghan told Oprah: "They were saying they didn't want him to be a prince or princess, not knowing what the gender would be, which would be different from protocol.” (Source)
As already shown; she was wrong in her statement about protocol. I still cannot believe that her husband didn't know the protocol as his cousin's children have no titles! Maybe it slipped his mind and he forgot to tell her?
As for security; it is unlikely that Archie was entitled to it; many Royals aren't except when on official engagements.
The Duke and Duchess resigned from royal duties and moved first to Canada and then to California. They don't do any work for the Queen and have not done so for at least 6 months. Why should I and my fellow UK taxpayers pay for their and their family's security?
They both have personal fortunes and spent a reported $14.7 million buying their home. In addition they have signed Netflix and other media deals reported to be worth multi millions of dollars. They don't need my hard earned cash; they can afford to pay for their own security.
-
1
-
Post-Brexit Britain's global ambitions start with investment at home, says PM
in World News
Posted
So yet another U-turn by Boris?
I thought the official line was that all our problems would be solved by Wonder Woman Truss' trade deals and our joining the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership!
What's changed?
Increased calls for IndyRef2 in Scotland and unrest in Northern Ireland due to being sold out in his protocol, perhaps?