Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About *_ash_*

  • Rank
    formerly djash1000

Recent Profile Visitors

2,276 profile views
  1. He was speaking before anyone knew anything, and main news was who is going to win the next dance competition. What you are talking about in called hindsight. Again short memory. At the time, testing took days to do. And wasn't very accurate at the time. What I will take from this (using my hindsight) and what should have happened, was we should had made use of the quarantine facilities and tried to keep it out of hospitals. It probably wouldn't have worked with the new strains as they so contagious, but the government at the time built all these quick places to put people... a known way of working. It's been happening for hundreds of years, but now the only reminder are old 'isolation hospitals' that rich people now live in.
  2. Surely they would have been bought before the pandemic?, if that is true. I remember Patrick Vallance on late night TV in January 2020, when people and news were more concerned about whether the next 'Strictly' winner will be a formerly black gay white brexiter, who has trans'd from a white woman who is the first black man to win a white contest... etc. He said, this looks serious, and I believed him. He was right. So they bought him, before the pandemic? Is that what you are saying? You were still arguing about something else at the time. The first thread in here about the virus was 23rd January and started by taxman. (to my recollection, though the thread has now been removed) No one in opposition opposed any lockdown decisions at first. You have a short memory.
  3. I've never claimed anything other than what the experts say. (by experts: I mean people who have spent their working lives studying viruses, rather than what people on facebook say). I've never heard any of them claim anything is 100%. China opted for a zero-policy and it worked for a couple of years (in terms of not many infections), and the west opted to see what happens because they couldn't contain it. Neither has particularly done well out of it. The economy around the world is severely affected, and in places like UK, we now have a huge waiting list for healthcare. Perhaps in 100 years people will be able to look at the big picture and see which countries had good tactics. Of course, you will throw at me, why hasn't Africa suffered, because they have low death rates with relatively few vaccines... and the answer to that (my answer/guess now) will probably be that Africa has a much lower average age. Europe, USA, China, Japan etc. all have a lot of old people who we know (unless you are going to argue this) are more susceptible to the virus.
  4. It adds up perfectly. They have had a zero-covid policy from the start.
  5. Yes, this is probably the main point. Smoking adverts were banned for bad for health. Alcohol adverts remain. Gambling adverts are perfectly ok. Fastfood places are perfectly ok. Tax on cigarettes is very high these days - 'to stop people smoking' - or to raise money for lost incomes from advertising and taxes off that? (I'm not sure) If alcohol adverts were removed, I think the cost of alcohol would increase heavily. Gambling brings lots of revenue, so governments won't want to stop adverts for that. (not just this government, Labour opened up the market for lots of gambling establishments to open when Blair was in). Fastfood provides lots of employment. It's definitely difficult to quantify and work out what should or should not be allowed. It's too easy for people to say 'ban this!' , 'ban that!' , because they don't have the countries finances to balance up.
  6. ah I don't need it to translate. I perhaps didn't word it right. I meant the videos I am doing are translation videos. I can do the translation myself. It's just putting the subtitles. As I want to write in 2 languages.
  7. https://youtu.be/KxVv_94txu0 double standards. someone showed me this earlier.
  8. Did your Doctor friend not mind splashes of bodily fluids entering their eyes?
  9. I'm not justifying anything, but the reality is £50 is probably around £40 more than unskilled labourers earn in Bangladesh/India etc. It's reality of why things are cheap. It's nothing new. Qatar owes these people nothing. They choose to go there because even **** wages is better than no wages, and they know they will be kicked out after... it's nothing new. It's not Britain where you get here and can stay job or no job. Where do people think all our cheap TVs, cheap phones and cheap clothes come from? They aren't from British people earning minimum wages of £9.50 an hour with tea breaks included. How much money to premiership players get from playing in UK and Europe? People pay for the £50 tickets, buy shirts, buy TV contracts, they contribute towards the whole thing. People pay for SKY and whatnot, they are all contributing to these rich people. I think this tournament is just showing people what really goes on in the game these days. - I agree with the whole thing here though. I don't think I've met a single person who actually believes this was a 'legit' hosting. Thankfully, I have lost interest in football, so I don't have to ban myself from watching it. I literally, don't give a **** about the tournament results. I lost interest during the lockdowns, when I just thought, football isn't what I used to go to. Kneeling down for a criminal, bringing politics into football too. It's no longer enjoyable to me. The world could punish FIFA by no one watching it... will that happen? Will it heck!
  10. yeah, although probably no one will agree. I saw on news yesterday, the viewing figures are lowest in history. Next day, this happens and world news.
  11. I didn't think I suggested it was. I applauded an idea for advertising that is a common way for things to be 'free' to the user. If they are going to use a diesel bus, then there are plenty around, so that won't cost much. Advertising can pay for the maintenance and fuel. I use youtube to study, and I have to watch adverts to get it 'free'. I can of course choose to pay to remove the adverts, but I would assume even if the bus is payments, the advertising will still be there to subsidise the service. In fact, if the country wasn't so rigid with rules, I'm sure you could advertise the driver job to rather than £15 an hour and complains to the union every time they add another stop, that some retired drivers who are still perfectly capable and bored could volunteer the job, and have a pot for people to put tips in. Though I must say, I don't know how you would deal with the druggies and whatnot getting on them all day.
  12. That's a good reason to not go to Morocco or on that airline. Which airline was it?
  13. How ridiculous!! That sounds like a great idea, so there is no chance they will consider it. Also that site has a weird font. Gives me a headache, or maybe it's the diesel fumes and way of writing... 1st line (header): New shuttle bus set to provide free travel around Sheffield city centre Last line: The city centre shuttle bus will be free to people with a valid travel pass, with a small flat fee for people without a pass. Will it be a small fee like the 20p parking charges to ensure quick movement of vehicles and more spaces available, that is now, normal street pricing? Fees, cash, and Britain and its Victorian society, is why buses are so slow now. A smooth efficient service doesn't work when at every stop 20 people fish around their pockets for coins. However, as someone pointed out, if it's completely free, it'll probably just be a warm place for all the druggies in town that Sheffield invited from other cities.
  14. Nigeria is full of billionaires who can afford good medical care... surely you already have email and know this?
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.