Slarti

The replacement is a separate issue.

As I've previously agreed, dismissed can cover many things. Legally sacked equals dismissed, redundancy equals dismissed, etc. However, dismissed does not necessarily equal sacked. It's like all pigeons are birds but not all birds are pigeons.

Contract not renewed. Not a sacking, dismissal or redundancy. In my opinion he should have been offered another contract but it wasn't my decision. Depends what you mean by "right or wrong". In a football sense? In a "nice thing to do" sense? Something else?

Aye, so ye did. [emoji1787]

Being "dismissed" does not mean you have done something wrong, being "sacked" does (at least in this context, not as in, for example, putting something in a sack).

In legal terns, dismissal covers redundancy too, which is why I never argued the point. My point is that "sacked" is a layman's term not a legal one as he originally claimed. Also, dismissal is usually used with a qualifier, as I pointed out. In layman's terms, you wouldn't use "dismissed" to describe a redundancy you would use it to describe a "sacking", i.e. a dismissal for doing something wrong. Unless "sacked", "sacking" etc are used in law his whole point is moot.

I'd imagine that "sacked" isn't mentioned in law, it would be "dismissed". If you can point to the relevant law, I'll happily admit I was wrong. Sacked, to me, is a layman's term for being dismissed for doing something wrong. "Dismissed" generally means that you've done something wrong and it's usually stated, e.g. "Dismissed for gross misconduct".

I don't know why some can't understand that, you'd think that they might have an axe to grind.

Did you ask the other 20+ people who also wrote that they had been sacked/let go/relieved of their duties to confirm??? I guess not. Personally, I can't recall anyone else using "sacked" and they two other phrases do not necessarily mean "sacked". To be sacked you need to have done something "wrong" which is not necessarily the case with the other phrases.

You need to speak to Baz if it's about facts.

As long as you're not poor at keeping a boat afloat.

I'm sure it's fine, just go for it.

Oh fur fuxake, think Div needs to use one of those "I'm not a robot" things.

Others have covered most of it already but ... It's not exactly "new", at least not in the way some are trying to suggest. It's not just an idea that someone came up with in response to this virus, it's something that has been getting worked on for decades. It's not fear of the unvaccinated, it's concern for those who, for medical reasons, cannot get the vaccine and for others who could be severely affected by even mild symptoms.

Why the fascination with mRNA? It's something that has been getting studied for over 60 years, it's not some new phenomenon that they just found and developed after covid.

Would the virus not be more likely to do that?

Or maybe he used them to clean up his graph. [emoji1787]

From just the info you provided, it really doesn't automatically mean that 66% don't trust it though, does it? Was there a "don't know" option, for example? Or was there an option to not answer the question? It really depends on what the actual question was, the choice of answers and whether an answer was compulsory, among other things.

He'd used them by April. [emoji1787]

No, I don't think Erwin is English.

Nobody, on here at least, is advocating forced vaccination.

What I was really doing was saying that I'm almost 100% sure that most of these young people who are refusing the vaccine would be quick enough to queue for it if not getting it prevented them from doing what they like doing. In other words, I don't believe that most aren't getting it because of a personal medical choice, it's because they think they're "invincible" or rebels or some other ridiculous reason. Or maybe, as faraway put it, they're just fuckwits who only care about themselves. I'm all for personal choice but it comes with personal responsibility and part of that responsibility is to, if possible, reduce risk to everyone else.

It wouldn't be an underclass, it would be their choice. They wouldn't be getting forced to do anything, they would just be getting told there are certain things that they can't do. What if someone chooses not to take a driving test? Is it infringing on their rights to forbid them to drive? No, it's a safety issue. Every choice we make in life has consequences, big or small, and choosing not to help protect others that are more vulnerable, at no cost and with very little risk, is no different. Smelly folk in pubs get shunned and, I would imagine, their smelliest is less "dangerous" than the unvaccinated. --- Or maybe, since the majority would be vaccinated, it would be the unvaccinated who would have to travel on specially arranged flights, and probably at a higher cost.

Should start with pubs and clubs, live music events and anything else that the younger generation are big on. If you have to prove you are vaccinated to get get a pint there will be longer queues at vaccination centres than at the bar.

But it's not solely a personal medical decision, it's also a societal decision. It's not on a par with, say, refusing cancer treatment as that isn't infectious and, for a similar reason, your peanut "analogy" isn't really analogous. As for older people, using your logic they shouldn't be caring about the environment, caring for others etc, etc as it won't affect them as they'll soon be gone. We also don't yet understand the effects of long covid so that could be a ticking time bomb for those younger people who recover from the initial infection. Will the vaccine cause "things" later in life? Who knows? But unless you are willing to live in lockdown for 10/20/30 years, we don't have the time to find out, all we can do is deal with the here and now. I don't think it should be compulsory but those who refuse it shouldn't expect to have the same "freedoms" as everyone else as they are a potential health risk to others, especially to those who can't get the vaccine for medical reasons. In short, this is not really just a personal medical decision.