onewheeldave

The athletes high BMI is due to high muscle mass- that obviously is not the case with obese schoolchildren.

The important thing is the 'per passenger' emissions, in which case they are consideraby worse than commercial airliners. ' In 2019, one tenth of all flights departing from France were with private jets, half of which travelled less than 500km. In fact, private jets are twice as likely to be used for very short trips (< 500 km) within Europe as compared to flights in commercial aviation. Our report finds that private jets are 5 to 14 times more polluting than commercial planes (per passenger), and 50 times more polluting than trains, a gap which will grow as private jet users move towards aircraft which are bigger and more polluting than their commercial alternatives.' https://www.transportenvironment.org/discover/private-jets-can-the-super-rich-supercharge-zero-emission-aviation/

She explains in the OPs link- " Maddie Budd, a former medical student, said: "People are going to say that he's a hero, people are going to say that this is profoundly, obscenely disrespectful to his life, and to the NHS he stood up for and I agree. I was studying to become a doctor because I believe in taking care of people. "If we believe that the NHS is important, if we believe in taking care of each other, if we believe that NHS workers are doing essential work, why are forcing our healthcare system into collapse, why are we forcing our civilisation into collapse, why is basically no-one taking this genocide of all humanity seriously? All of this is true and the Government won't even End UK Private Jets. Every time one takes off, it pours a bucket of s*** and blood onto everything that Captain Tom stood for". She's pouring **** over it because, in effect, that is exactly what our society is doing to the the ideals represented- she's just making it literal to highlight the fact. [that's my understanding of her words anyway]

Only if there is an afterlife- then you will continue in some form and be capable of knowing. If there is no afterlife, there is no you and so no possibility of knowing anything.

You're the first person on this thread to mention 'conspiracy'. Why, in your eyes, does any criticism of a change have to be a conspiracy?

Just to clarify- are you saying you have the central heating on 4hrs a day now [august22]?

What I'm saying is, to discuss gender, a definition of gender is required- do you agree?

No- according to the definition, 2 biological sexes [in the main, obviously there are infrequent incidences of individuals with both male and female genitalia] and a spectrum of genders that are largely social constructs. I'm sure the definition is not perfect, but it is coherent and so a good potential starting point- clearly preferable to having a discussion on gender with no definition whatsoever

There are victims on both sides

Given that people who 'misunderstand ' gender are being penalised I think it is important to actually have a definition for the term, isn't it. As starting point, how about- "Gender refers to the characteristics of women, men, girls and boys that are socially constructed. This includes norms, behaviours and roles associated with being a woman, man, girl or boy, as well as relationships with each other. As a social construct, gender varies from society to society and can change over time." [World Health Organisation] https://www.who.int/health-topics/gender#tab=tab_1

It's a mental illness

Which countries?

'Living with covid' will involve cases rising and falling over time. Spring is the best time of year for a big increase in cases.

Anyone going to consider the huge amount of hassle renaming would cause the residents of the road?

"involving or based on a hypothesis" in this case, a hypothesis which is not actually possible! You're seeing things very much from your own perspective. The world doesn't revolve around you- there are other people who experience and see things in a very different way. I see those who, from my perspective, sold their, mine and everyone elses civil liberties down the river due to their irrational fear, acceptance of scaremongering official narrative statistics and love of virtue signalling, as being the very antithesis of 'socially responsible'. They also strike me as highly selfish.

No- to be hypothetical it must be possible for the problem to exist. The 'problem' of everyone choosing to not get vaccinated obviously cannot exist, as the majority have already had it.

No defence needed- the 'problem' you're talking about [everyone choosing to not be vaccinated] does not exist, It's not hypothetical as it cannpt possibly be the case that no-one gets vaccinated- they've been vaccinated already. Well, other than care workers, now the govt has given up on compulsory vaccinations for NHS staff, we are in a world where everyone is allowed to enjoy civil liberty and opt out; so, if you're right there will be a 'catastrophic impact that would have on the NHS and economy of the country', won't there? [I rather doubt it myself].

no I think no-body should be forced to have a covid jab They won't- the majority will have the jab; the majority already have had the jab!

The majority won't opt out. It's too late anyway, the majority of the public have already had the vaccine. As far as I'm concerned no one should be forced to have the covid vaccination. Omicron is far too harmless to justify such a degredation of civil liberty.

No, they'rehappy for those who want to get vaccinated to get vaccinated; they're not happy for those who choose not to get vaccinated to be forced to get vaccinated- they are pro choice and anti coercion. I am. They won't all decide to opt out- the majority want the vaccine.

Will this 'road tax' be based on emissions like the car 'road tax' is? Did it examine how much the overall savings to society would be for each extra cyclist? [e.g. less cost to the NHS from conditions associated with lack of exercise, such as heart disease/stroke, type 2 diabetes, obesity etc, etc]. Cos if they are more than £4,915 then it's money well spent. It's not the most common one though, is it? The main 'moans' about the majority of cycle paths is that they're just thin strips of paint at the edge of the road, in the gutter, along with various debris and trash; in a position where, much of the time, it's simply not safe to be cycling in them. Then there are the cars parked on them, etc.

Anyother interesting video from Dr Keith Campbell addressing the BBC 'debunk' of ivermectin. Shows the shoddy practices of the mainstream media in their reporting when it came to the official narrative. [personally I've no interest in ivermectin as I've not looked into it, the video is interesting because it shows what actually happens when actual science is applied to this kind of 'debunk'].

We also had the farce of police running drones over the countyside and fining lone walkers- rathering embarrisngly and publically overturned by the authorites; but, worth remembering how these petty officials go over the top, and, how plenty of the public thought this kind of stuff was OK. Not really- I did secure a doctors letter explaining I had medical reasons to be outside, just in case any officials tried to object.

If you've had your daily allocation of 'out', then, at that point, you can't go to the park. It really is quite nightmarish re-reading what happened back then. Personally I ignored it all and went out as often as I wanted. More sobering now in hindsight, as the chances of transmission outdoors are now known to be virtually zero; whereas the known benefits of outdoor exercise are vast, so preventing people going out [opps, sorry, limiting going out to once a day] certainly did way more harm than good. I too hope that if ever such draconian rubbish is attempted again, that the people just stick 2 fingers up at it and continue with life as normal.

where it says you can only go out once a day. Some people like to go out twice, or even more.