Oct 9, 2021 -- 9:58AM, wolf3011 wrote:
Why shouldn't minutes from a medical body regarding a vaccine for children be made available immediately for the public unless they have something to hide?
I suggest you read your OP, that may give you a clue.
Oct 9, 2021 -- 10:37AM, wolf3011 wrote:
Why would minutes " need to be finalised" when they are direct quotes of what is said and given the importance of these minutes over 1 month later, we are expected to believe they are still being typed up? The definition of minutes from any meeting " Minutes, also known as minutes of meeting (abbreviation MoM), protocols or, informally, notes, are the instant written record of a meeting or hearing"... I think the key word is "instant"
You may well think the key word is instant; which is more someone taking a note of what was being said. But the minutes have to be analysed to see if they were indeed a correct representation of what was said.
Oct 9, 2021 -- 11:07AM, Charlie wrote:
Or put simply, minutes are not minutes until they are approved.
Which bit of this don't you understand?
Oct 9, 2021 -- 11:12AM, wolf3011 wrote:
Given the crucial nature of the meeting, 5 weeks and counting isn't suspicious is it of publishing minutes when it could be done in less than 24 hours. Just face facts Charlie, you're determined to push the vaccine agenda at any cost even when supporting a political party you openly despise- there is no reason for minutes from a JCVI meeting not to be published after 5 weeks. You're floundering as usual and have only appeared once again to argue night is day due to the vaccine obsession you have and trying to win an online argument which you fail at continually.
Just face facts in that you don't understand what approving minutes means.
Oct 9, 2021 -- 11:17AM, wolf3011 wrote:
It doesn't take weeks to publish and approve minutes Charlie- just face facts you're a bored old troll just creating an argument for the hell of it once again
Hooray our little furry friend I was wondering how long it would take before you resorted to insults. I supposes you think that adds to your stance?
Oct 9, 2021 -- 11:18AM, clouded leopard wrote:
YEPcorrection : Only a hysterical idiot or a troll would argue the other side
Very well done, unfortunately it adds nothing to your argument apart from making you look foolish.
Oct 9, 2021 -- 11:21AM, clouded leopard wrote:
So coerce, intimidate, incentivize, threaten, bribe, cajole, force, scare, lie is ok on a daily basisBut on no account actually inform
Impressive, sums you up succinctly.
Oct 9, 2021 -- 11:27AM, clouded leopard wrote:
What would be a reasonable timeframe to 'approve' such important minutes ?In a decentralized world they would be immediateIn order to help people make 'immediate' judgement on such a pressing issue as a deadly virus that may kill their 15 year oldwalofs
Perhaps important decisions take a while.
Oct 9, 2021 -- 11:30AM, wolf3011 wrote:
You can talk about furry friends all day Charlie, it's embarrassing you are defending a policy not to publish minutes from a health body discussing vaccines for kids just to try to troll yet another thread. The funniest thing about Charlie is half the time he doesn't even believe what he is arguing but argues it anyway if it is a poster he perceives as an adversary. " Perhaps important decisions take a while " to release minutes from a meeting that could be done next day- what can anyone say to that other than laugh at poor charlie.
Now you're a mind reader in saying: The funniest thing about Charlie is half the time he doesn't even believe what he is arguing, you could make a living out of that.
Perhaps important decisions take a while " to release minutes from a meeting that could be done next day- what can anyone say to that other than laugh at poor charlie. Perhaps they do our little furry friend.
Oct 9, 2021 -- 11:36AM, wolf3011 wrote:
What time would you consider reasonable to release minutes- years or just enough time to make sure the vast majority of kids have been vaccinated?
Not my decision.
Oct 9, 2021 -- 11:38AM, clouded leopard wrote:
Just another dodgy matter to be filed in the massive folder of 'dodgy going ons since the start of this bullshine'How many pointers do people actually need ?
What other dodgy decisions are you referring to?
Oct 9, 2021 -- 11:42AM, wolf3011 wrote:
Maybe you believe they shouldn't be released at all Charlie and we should just watch some new graphs produced by whitty forecasting a winter of health oblivion. A few lines held up in charts at 5 pm daily by professor Fergusons successor telling us anyone over the age of a foetus is doomed saying " they will keep us updated and we will show you all the data" will be enough for some people.
You're not very good at this clairvoyance.
Oct 9, 2021 -- 11:45AM, wolf3011 wrote:
Imagine how thick dave must be to think it takes over 5 weeks to publish minutes
Another insult, now you're back on form.
Oct 9, 2021 -- 11:48AM, dave1357 wrote:
I did insult him to be fair, but note how he quickly slips into strawman mode.
I find him good fun, he makes me laugh, long may he continue to post.
Oct 9, 2021 -- 11:54AM, wolf3011 wrote:
A thread highlighting the lack of transparency of government data has Charlie and dave not discussing that at all but conducting an online cyber romance...poor sods, no wonder this place is dead.
Next thing you know you'll be supporting Doris. Surely you've never done that?
Oct 9, 2021 -- 12:24PM, dave1357 wrote:
You are a desperate human being, ignorant and bigoted. You've never had a decent job, or any academic achievement, it all shows.
Oct 9, 2021 -- 12:53PM, SontaranStratagem wrote:
I can't wait until we get our hands on the likes of Handcock and co, give them such a fooking hiding they wont know if its christmas or pancake day the little bas*ards
I actually walked past a house months ago where hancocks face was on a wall with a wanted dead or alive message on it
Oct 9, 2021 -- 2:18PM, PorcupineorPineapple wrote:
nothing to do with discussion on unknown risks medium/long term for a group that doesn't need the jab Asked this several times now, but this place seems as good a bet as any of finally getting an answer.What's the study that proves there's no medium/long term risk to kids from catching the virus?
There aren't any medium/ long term studies done on the risks of covid to kids, but as the vaccine doesn't stop kids getting it then it's a moot point