Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson

1129130132134135

Comments

  • alienfromzogalienfromzog Shipmate
    Johnson may have been “baptised Roman Catholic” but he was actually confirmed into the Anglican Church - God alone knows what, if anything, he actually believes about theology.

    I'm willing to hazard a guess....

    Daniel 4:30

    AFZ
  • ThunderBunkThunderBunk Shipmate
    God alone knows what, if anything, he actually believes about theology.

    I fear that he believes that theology, like everything else in the world, exists purely to serve him. Scandalously, the church has directly supported this supposition, in this case.

    What matters here is that it is a church that follows Christ, and which has a structure which binds and frees individuals, not which one it is. Is this a case of privilege given to an individual, or of insitutions supporting and enabling each other? The fact that the link with Westminster Cathedral is the posiition of 10 Downing Street suggests my answer, and I believe this has huge connotations for a church that is claiming to have dealt with this purely on a personal level.
  • DavidDavid Shipmate
    A recent case in the Northern Irish High Court of Justice's Family Division — Ms A (Validity of Marriage) [2021] NIFam 8 (18 March 2021) — is a sad, yet fascinating, discussion and decision on what is, and is not, a valid marriage in the eyes of the law in Northern Ireland.
  • GarethMoonGarethMoon Shipmate
    Forthview wrote:
    I understand that the CofE allows divorce and remarriage. does that mean that any Anglican is entitled to walk out on his or her spouse and simply form another legally binding attachment without any further ado ? With all due respect to our Anglican brothers and sisters would this not reflect badly on Anglican doctrine and practice ?

    Well, you obviously have to get divorced first. Citizens Advice suggests that 4-6 months if the spouse agrees.

    The CofE aren't going to stop you from "simply form(ing) another legally binding attachment without any further ado". It's possible they might not let you have it in a church (Charles & Camila) or they may (Harry & Meghan).

    In general I find that the sort of priests who will probe into a divorce are the same sort who wouldn't bless a gay couple, would want "marriage prep" for people who have lived together for 15 years & have 3 kids, and see a wedding as either bothersome because it gets in the way of their "mission" or see it as "mission" and hope the couple will "get saved" through the process.

  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    GarethMoon wrote: »
    Forthview wrote:
    I understand that the CofE allows divorce and remarriage. does that mean that any Anglican is entitled to walk out on his or her spouse and simply form another legally binding attachment without any further ado ? With all due respect to our Anglican brothers and sisters would this not reflect badly on Anglican doctrine and practice ?

    Well, you obviously have to get divorced first. Citizens Advice suggests that 4-6 months if the spouse agrees.

    The CofE aren't going to stop you from "simply form(ing) another legally binding attachment without any further ado". It's possible they might not let you have it in a church (Charles & Camila) or they may (Harry & Meghan).

    In general I find that the sort of priests who will probe into a divorce are the same sort who wouldn't bless a gay couple, would want "marriage prep" for people who have lived together for 15 years & have 3 kids, and see a wedding as either bothersome because it gets in the way of their "mission" or see it as "mission" and hope the couple will "get saved" through the process.

    And yet when I went to Kensington Temple they did not see a wedding as an evangelistic opportunity. It was to celebrate the wedding.
    I was baptised and brought up RC and jumped. I respect the RC mass and do not take communion when at their services. I still have RC friends and family. I would never claim RCness just to get what I want. RC priests are not able to legally marry. My sister had a registrar at the church to do the legal bit. All this discussion is about theology not legality of course as mentioned. It is very confusing
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    Forthview wrote: »
    <snip>
    I understand that the CofE allows divorce and remarriage. does that mean that any Anglican is entitled to walk out on his or her spouse and simply form another legally binding attachment without any further ado? With all due respect to our Anglican brothers and sisters would this not reflect badly on Anglican doctrine and practice?<snip>

    It would reflect badly if it were the case. But there are guidelines (PDF). Obviously, I can't tell how widely they are observed.
  • AnselminaAnselmina Shipmate
    Forthview wrote: »
    Curiosity killed - surely those children you mention who were born 'out of wedlock' will not have to ask themselves the question as to whether'mummy and daddy were really married'
    If the parents weren't married then they weren't married.. Unless the parents told the children that they were married when they weren't,there is no problem.
    Similarly if they were married then they were married.


    I was just speculating (facetiously admittedly!) on how I'd feel if I found out that my father had willingly submitted to a situation of having to agree that his marriage to my mother wasn't 'real' or properly sufficient to qualify as an actual marriage, in order to wed his latest girlfriend. Nothing to do with anyone being a bastard. Everything to do with a father's attitude towards relationships and familial responsibilities.
  • ForthviewForthview Shipmate
    Anselmina I understand what you were trying to say but you see that then another poster jumped from this to the 'little bastards'
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Hugal wrote: »
    And yet when I went to Kensington Temple they did not see a wedding as an evangelistic opportunity. It was to celebrate the wedding.
    I was baptised and brought up RC and jumped. I respect the RC mass and do not take communion when at their services. I still have RC friends and family. I would never claim RCness just to get what I want. RC priests are not able to legally marry. My sister had a registrar at the church to do the legal bit. All this discussion is about theology not legality of course as mentioned. It is very confusing

    Your sentence - RC priests are not able to legally marry - is ambiguous. Do you mean that a priest in Catholic orders cannot marry in law and remain in those orders, or is it that under some peculiarity in English law, Catholic priests cannot carry out ceremony which will validly marry?
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    Forthview wrote: »
    Enoch - thank you for your summary of Catholic teaching on marriage and your understanding of it.
    I would disagree with you on the use of the word 'void'
    From the Catholic point of view any legally recognised marriage ia a legally recognised marriage and brings with it certain obligations.
    From the Catholic point of view 'marriage' for someone who claims to be a Catholic is also a sacrament,conducted along the lines approved by the Catholic Church.
    Anyone who claims to be a Catholic who does not marry within the norms decided by the Church has simply not had a Catholic marriage. If they are otherwise free to do so in the land in which they live they are free to have a Catholic marriage.
    I understand that the CofE allows divorce and remarriage. does that mean that any Anglican is entitled to walk out on his or her spouse and simply form another legally binding attachment without any further ado ? With all due respect to our Anglican brothers and sisters would this not reflect badly on Anglican doctrine and practice ?

    I am also fairly sure that the legality of Boris Johnson's present marriage depends upon its having been conducted within the context of English marriage law not that it was conducted according to the rites of the Catholic Church.
    @Forthview as you may appreciate, it's a lot harder to say 'this is the C of E position' on something than 'this is the RC one'. The C of E doesn't work that way. If you look at the guidelines that @BroJames linked to, you will see that they are much more interested in praxis than doctrine.

    However, as general rules, it's possible to deduce following, even though you may find individual clergy who don't agree with all of them.

    - It's not so much that the CofE, as you put it "allows divorce and remarriage", so much as that it reluctantly accepts and puts up with it. Note the use of the words 'should always', 'regrettably' and 'exceptional circumstances' in the Synod resolution..

    - Whether or not a person believes that marriage creates an invisible bubble, most C of E people would say that the bond should not be broken but sadly is, rather than that it is ontologically impossible to break it other than by death, which I understand to be the RC position.

    - Opinions vary in the CofE as to how many sacraments there are, and as to what is included in the list. Irrespective of how many there are, the two dominical sacraments are of a different order from any others.

    - Whether one classes marriage as a sacrament or not, it is a sacred bond which God recognises. It is therefore better that people make it before him.

    - What people don't generally believe is that some marriages are 'sacramental' and others aren't or that a church marriage creates a completely different sort of marriage from any other with different consequences.

    - The vows aren't something peculiar to one form of marriage. They are expressing in words the commitment that all married people are bound to wherever they married. If you marry before the registrar, you are just as married as if you married in church. The CofE recognises you as such. Nor are either of you let off parts of the bond.


    Going back to Mr and Mrs Johnson, I cannot say that they could never have found a CofE priest in any of the parishes where either of them had current or historic right of residence might have been erastian enough to be willing to marry them, but he or she would have been unable to do so without riding a coach and horses through the House of Bishops's guidance that is attached to the Synod resolution of July 2002.

  • ForthviewForthview Shipmate
    There is no law in England which says that an RC priest cannot marry a partner legally.
    In general in England and under the usual conditions of time and place an RC priest can act as a Registrar and complete the formalities for a marriage recognised as such by the state.
    In general those RC priests of the Roman rite who do marry a partner would be suspended from divine duties

    Part of the 'problem' or at least the difficulties is the fact that in England civil and religious weddings need not be separate.
    In many countries a civil wedding gives the marriage legal effect and a religious wedding gives the marriage religious blessing or effect.
    'Catholic' weddings are not usually evangelistic opportunities in general but rather provide the blessing of the Church on the couple who seek to sloemnize their in the eyes of the Church.
  • ForthviewForthview Shipmate
    Sorry last sentence whould read as 'seek to solemnize their marriage in the eyes of the Church'
  • ForthviewForthview Shipmate
    thank you Enoch for your excellent explanation of CofE praxis.Can you now explain,however, how a legally married RC can simply walk away from one spouse and marry another without further ado , as you earlier suggested.
    I would think that a legally married RC who had married in a Catholic ceremony would have to first of all divorce a first spouse (much as an Anglican would have to do)
    He or she would then have to find some means of annulling that marriage before another marriage with Catholic rites could be held - to my mind that is much the same as any seriously minded Anglican would have to do.
    This is,of course, assuming that the RC in question was a British citizen,subject to British law.
    While the RC Church is able ,like other religious bodies,to have its own internal rules,it is also subject to the laws of the land in which it is functioning.
    It is simply not possible for an RC to dismiss a spouse without any further ado and turn up at an RC church asking for a new ceremony.
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    Gee D wrote: »
    Hugal wrote: »
    And yet when I went to Kensington Temple they did not see a wedding as an evangelistic opportunity. It was to celebrate the wedding.
    I was baptised and brought up RC and jumped. I respect the RC mass and do not take communion when at their services. I still have RC friends and family. I would never claim RCness just to get what I want. RC priests are not able to legally marry. My sister had a registrar at the church to do the legal bit. All this discussion is about theology not legality of course as mentioned. It is very confusing

    Your sentence - RC priests are not able to legally marry - is ambiguous. Do you mean that a priest in Catholic orders cannot marry in law and remain in those orders, or is it that under some peculiarity in English law, Catholic priests cannot carry out ceremony which will validly marry?


    Sorry for the confusion. As far as I know if you want to Marry in an RC (and several other) Church you either have to have a civil ceremony, then a church one or have a registrar present at the service to take care of the legal side. My sister had a registrar present at her wedding
  • la vie en rougela vie en rouge Circus Host, 8th Day Host
    edited May 31
    Apparently some Catholics, including some of the Johnsons' fellow parishioners at Westminster Cathedral are giving the marriage the side eye. It certainly looks to me like bringing the church into disrepute.

    (FWIW my husband has a living previous spouse, so I'm not opposed to remarriage as a matter of principle. OTOH our church doesn't usually refuse to remarry divorcees, and husband en rouge is not a notorious serial philanderer.
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    Sorry @Forthview, I didn't appreciate that you've misunderstood me. I wasn't suggesting by "entitled to walk out on your spouse and marry another one without more ado", that there was a category of person who had married in a way recognised by the law of the land in any forum and who could remarry without getting a legally valid divorce through the courts first.

    I was criticising the line that the RC church takes that if you are RC and marry in a non-RC ceremony, you're treated as never having been married as an RC at all. If you dump your spouse and get a divorce, you're squeaky clean. In the RC church's eyes, you've never really been married. You're as a single person, even though you may have been married for years, have betrayed your spouse and have several children. Nothing needs annulling.

    However, if you weren't RC when you got married, you're not squeaky clean. If you become an RC and want to marry again, or even if you don't become an RC but want to marry one, your previous marriage has to be annulled by the RCC and it may not be.

    Somebody I knew, sadly since died, became an RC with a second wife. She had not followed him to Rome. He was only allowed to take communion if he either left his wife or if they never slept together again. By the time I knew him he was fairly elderly but as a pastoral directive, it seemed to take no account nor even to care what she might have felt about it.

  • Doc TorDoc Tor Admin
    Anselmina wrote: »
    ]
    Nothing to do with anyone being a bastard.

    Well, colloquially, I'm pretty certain that Johnson qualifies as a bastard.

    The only question is whether he's a complete one, an utter one or a total one...
  • ForthviewForthview Shipmate
    'dumping a spouse' being 'squeaky clean' and even 'serial philanderer' are loaded terms which do not help in the sad situations which human beings often find themselves in as far as personal relationships are concerned.
    Not every relationship which involves a separation of bed and table or even a divorce leaves the people involved 'squeaky clean' and not everyone who enters a second marriage can lightly be classified a serial philanderer.
    I accept your criticism of the RC system but if you haven't been married by the RC system ,then you haven't been married by the RC system and if you fulfil the conditions of the Church ( and normally also those of the State in which you live !) then you may marry.
    You certainly don't have to be a Saint in order to do so

    I understand the pain caused in the case of your elderly friend. I understand also the possible pain caused to his wife. Is it possible that it was you who felt the pain rather than the elderly man and his possibly elderly wife ?

    la vie en rouge will know surely that only a very small number of Catholics understand the marriage laws of the Church just as very few will understand or even care about the theology which underpins those marriage laws.. And the same for the Anglican Church. The Church is constantly brought into disrepute by the actions of its members - few of us are squeaky clean - but that is why we need the Church.
  • ForthviewForthview Shipmate
    I'm not sure which country Hugal lives in,nor do I know of which country he is a citizen.
    Certainly within the UK an RC priest can act (in England with limitations of time and place) as a Registrar at a wedding. He fills out the documents necessary in the name of the Registrar.
    It is possible in England that if the RC ceremony took place in a setting which was not licenced for marriages or not in an RC church that a Registrar would need to be present.It is,however, very unusual for permission to be granted for an RC ceremony to take place away from an RC church or chapel,unless an episcopal dispensation had been granted for the marriage to take place in a non Catholic church with one of the spouses being a non-Catholic Christian. Again different rules apply if one of the spouses is not claiming to be Christian..
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    I knew it. The buggers did advocate herd immunity and have been trying to gaslight us: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/uk-backed-off-on-herd-immunity-to-beat-coronavirus-we-need-it

    I don't recall anyone coming on tv and telling us to go out and create herd immunity.

    No-one is claiming that. However, I do recall, and this article confirms, that there was at one point an intention to allow herd immunity to build up through infection of people at the time considered non-vulnerable. Since then the government has denied that was ever policy, which reminds me that Oceania is and always has been at war with Eastasia.

    So it was never an actual policy. It was merely a suggestion.
  • alienfromzogalienfromzog Shipmate
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    I knew it. The buggers did advocate herd immunity and have been trying to gaslight us: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/uk-backed-off-on-herd-immunity-to-beat-coronavirus-we-need-it

    I don't recall anyone coming on tv and telling us to go out and create herd immunity.

    No-one is claiming that. However, I do recall, and this article confirms, that there was at one point an intention to allow herd immunity to build up through infection of people at the time considered non-vulnerable. Since then the government has denied that was ever policy, which reminds me that Oceania is and always has been at war with Eastasia.

    So it was never an actual policy. It was merely a suggestion.

    Nope. It was official policy of HM Government as far as we can tell from the available information. The fact that they never admitted as much (although they came quite close) doesn't change that fact.

    AFZ
  • la vie en rougela vie en rouge Circus Host, 8th Day Host
    @Forthview I can't help feeling that you're deliberately trying to muddy the waters here. The subject at hand is not whether "everyone who enters a second marriage can lightly be classified a serial philanderer". It's whether Boris Johnson can.

    If you want to defend Mr de Pfeffel Johnson's moral probity, feel free. But in my book, "serial philanderer" is perfectly accurate.
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    edited May 31
    Boris has had affairs outside his marriages, that means he is a philanderer. He has done this more than once, therefore he is a serial philanderer
  • Forthview wrote: »
    I would think that a legally married RC who had married in a Catholic ceremony would have to first of all divorce a first spouse (much as an Anglican would have to do)

    This encapsulates part of the difficulty I have with RC practice here. If our RC married in a Catholic ceremony, he would have to jump through all the hoops to get it annulled before he would be able to marry again in the Catholic church. Whereas if he got married in some non-RC ceremony - well, it doesn't really count, so as long as he's legally free to marry, the RC church doesn't care about his previous marriage.

    So far, we have a logically consistent, if slightly odd-looking, state of affairs.

    But suppose our hero began life as a member of the C of E, and married in the C of E. RC doctrine regards that marriage as sacramental, so if our hero gets a civil divorce, and then wishes to remarry in a Catholic church, his first marriage must be annulled.

    The only difference between this state of affairs and the one before it is whether he was baptized in a RC church or a C of E one.

    It becomes even more bizarre, in the case of Mr. Johnson, where his RC baptism is sufficient to mark him a lapsed Catholic (and so his non-RC weddings don't count), despite the fact that he was confirmed and spent his married life as a fairly bad adherent to the C of E.
  • ForthviewForthview Shipmate
    I am in no way trying to defend boris johnson's moral probity - far from it.I know nothing about it.
    I am attempting to defend his right,as a citizen of the United Kingdom, to marry.
    I am also attempting to defend those who divorce from the implication that they are necessarily those who 'dump one spouse' just to jump into bed with another and consider themselves as 'squeaky clean'. Many people will know that this is far from the case.
    Say what you want about Boris Johnson's moral probity. the last few posts have dealt with the circumstances of Boris Johnson's marriage and that is what my posts were concern3d with. Inparticular I tried to deal with general circumstances surrounding marriage within the RC church,given that there were a number of examples of confusion about these.
  • chrisstileschrisstiles Shipmate
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    I knew it. The buggers did advocate herd immunity and have been trying to gaslight us: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/uk-backed-off-on-herd-immunity-to-beat-coronavirus-we-need-it

    I don't recall anyone coming on tv and telling us to go out and create herd immunity.

    No-one is claiming that. However, I do recall, and this article confirms, that there was at one point an intention to allow herd immunity to build up through infection of people at the time considered non-vulnerable. Since then the government has denied that was ever policy, which reminds me that Oceania is and always has been at war with Eastasia.

    So it was never an actual policy. It was merely a suggestion.

    Nope. It was official policy of HM Government as far as we can tell from the available information. The fact that they never admitted as much (although they came quite close) doesn't change that fact.

    Insofar as no one actually said 'Our policy is herd immunity' they didn't admit as much, but it's a reasonable (and I'd argue only) inference from as far back as Patrick Vallance's interview with Sky News from March 13th of last year:

    https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-millions-of-britons-will-need-to-contract-covid-19-for-herd-immunity-11956793
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    Johnson in the confessional before his wedding - Guardian cartoon. :lol:

    https://tinyurl.com/2nvxnrut
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    I knew it. The buggers did advocate herd immunity and have been trying to gaslight us: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/uk-backed-off-on-herd-immunity-to-beat-coronavirus-we-need-it

    I don't recall anyone coming on tv and telling us to go out and create herd immunity.

    No-one is claiming that. However, I do recall, and this article confirms, that there was at one point an intention to allow herd immunity to build up through infection of people at the time considered non-vulnerable. Since then the government has denied that was ever policy, which reminds me that Oceania is and always has been at war with Eastasia.

    So it was never an actual policy. It was merely a suggestion.

    Nope. It was official policy of HM Government as far as we can tell from the available information. The fact that they never admitted as much (although they came quite close) doesn't change that fact.

    AFZ

    I see. An official policy that they never bothered to tell us about and you have no evidence for apart from the words of someone seeking his revenge
  • alienfromzogalienfromzog Shipmate
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    I knew it. The buggers did advocate herd immunity and have been trying to gaslight us: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/uk-backed-off-on-herd-immunity-to-beat-coronavirus-we-need-it

    I don't recall anyone coming on tv and telling us to go out and create herd immunity.

    No-one is claiming that. However, I do recall, and this article confirms, that there was at one point an intention to allow herd immunity to build up through infection of people at the time considered non-vulnerable. Since then the government has denied that was ever policy, which reminds me that Oceania is and always has been at war with Eastasia.

    So it was never an actual policy. It was merely a suggestion.

    Nope. It was official policy of HM Government as far as we can tell from the available information. The fact that they never admitted as much (although they came quite close) doesn't change that fact.

    AFZ

    I see. An official policy that they never bothered to tell us about and you have no evidence for apart from the words of someone seeking his revenge

    Apart from the multiple government statements that alluded to it, apart from the way the government behaved. (See @Chrisstiles comment above).

    Nope, no evidence at all....

    AFZ
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    I knew it. The buggers did advocate herd immunity and have been trying to gaslight us: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/uk-backed-off-on-herd-immunity-to-beat-coronavirus-we-need-it

    I don't recall anyone coming on tv and telling us to go out and create herd immunity.

    No-one is claiming that. However, I do recall, and this article confirms, that there was at one point an intention to allow herd immunity to build up through infection of people at the time considered non-vulnerable. Since then the government has denied that was ever policy, which reminds me that Oceania is and always has been at war with Eastasia.

    So it was never an actual policy. It was merely a suggestion.

    Nope. It was official policy of HM Government as far as we can tell from the available information. The fact that they never admitted as much (although they came quite close) doesn't change that fact.

    AFZ

    I see. An official policy that they never bothered to tell us about and you have no evidence for apart from the words of someone seeking his revenge

    And all the links we've demonstrated to people alluding to the policy at the time.

    God this is like nailing fog to a wall.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Meanwhile, since @Telford is probably going to take me to task for taking the Lord's name in vain I might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb and post a link to this wot made I laugh... https://scontent.fbhx2-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.6435-9/194063796_10159429183224254_8906639950224782912_n.jpg?_nc_cat=107&ccb=1-3&_nc_sid=825194&_nc_ohc=ZM3wA2J3-9wAX-Hjs97&_nc_ht=scontent.fbhx2-1.fna&oh=2bf91a5c03a8519adcf7d69445d2d3c7&oe=60DB5FBC
  • chrisstileschrisstiles Shipmate
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    I knew it. The buggers did advocate herd immunity and have been trying to gaslight us: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/uk-backed-off-on-herd-immunity-to-beat-coronavirus-we-need-it

    I don't recall anyone coming on tv and telling us to go out and create herd immunity.

    No-one is claiming that. However, I do recall, and this article confirms, that there was at one point an intention to allow herd immunity to build up through infection of people at the time considered non-vulnerable. Since then the government has denied that was ever policy, which reminds me that Oceania is and always has been at war with Eastasia.

    So it was never an actual policy. It was merely a suggestion.

    Nope. It was official policy of HM Government as far as we can tell from the available information. The fact that they never admitted as much (although they came quite close) doesn't change that fact.

    AFZ

    I see. An official policy that they never bothered to tell us about and you have no evidence for apart from the words of someone seeking his revenge

    And all the links we've demonstrated to people alluding to the policy at the time.

    God this is like nailing fog to a wall.

    Honestly, you'd do better arguing with a badly designed Markov chain.
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    I knew it. The buggers did advocate herd immunity and have been trying to gaslight us: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/uk-backed-off-on-herd-immunity-to-beat-coronavirus-we-need-it

    I don't recall anyone coming on tv and telling us to go out and create herd immunity.

    No-one is claiming that. However, I do recall, and this article confirms, that there was at one point an intention to allow herd immunity to build up through infection of people at the time considered non-vulnerable. Since then the government has denied that was ever policy, which reminds me that Oceania is and always has been at war with Eastasia.

    So it was never an actual policy. It was merely a suggestion.

    Nope. It was official policy of HM Government as far as we can tell from the available information. The fact that they never admitted as much (although they came quite close) doesn't change that fact.

    AFZ

    I see. An official policy that they never bothered to tell us about and you have no evidence for apart from the words of someone seeking his revenge

    Apart from the multiple government statements that alluded to it, apart from the way the government behaved. (See @Chrisstiles comment above).

    Nope, no evidence at all....

    AFZ

    I agree with your last statement
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    I knew it. The buggers did advocate herd immunity and have been trying to gaslight us: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/uk-backed-off-on-herd-immunity-to-beat-coronavirus-we-need-it

    I don't recall anyone coming on tv and telling us to go out and create herd immunity.

    No-one is claiming that. However, I do recall, and this article confirms, that there was at one point an intention to allow herd immunity to build up through infection of people at the time considered non-vulnerable. Since then the government has denied that was ever policy, which reminds me that Oceania is and always has been at war with Eastasia.

    So it was never an actual policy. It was merely a suggestion.

    Nope. It was official policy of HM Government as far as we can tell from the available information. The fact that they never admitted as much (although they came quite close) doesn't change that fact.

    Insofar as no one actually said 'Our policy is herd immunity' they didn't admit as much, but it's a reasonable (and I'd argue only) inference from as far back as Patrick Vallance's interview with Sky News from March 13th of last year:

    https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-millions-of-britons-will-need-to-contract-covid-19-for-herd-immunity-11956793

    Infected or vacinated.
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    I knew it. The buggers did advocate herd immunity and have been trying to gaslight us: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/uk-backed-off-on-herd-immunity-to-beat-coronavirus-we-need-it

    I don't recall anyone coming on tv and telling us to go out and create herd immunity.

    No-one is claiming that. However, I do recall, and this article confirms, that there was at one point an intention to allow herd immunity to build up through infection of people at the time considered non-vulnerable. Since then the government has denied that was ever policy, which reminds me that Oceania is and always has been at war with Eastasia.

    So it was never an actual policy. It was merely a suggestion.

    Nope. It was official policy of HM Government as far as we can tell from the available information. The fact that they never admitted as much (although they came quite close) doesn't change that fact.

    Insofar as no one actually said 'Our policy is herd immunity' they didn't admit as much, but it's a reasonable (and I'd argue only) inference from as far back as Patrick Vallance's interview with Sky News from March 13th of last year:

    https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-millions-of-britons-will-need-to-contract-covid-19-for-herd-immunity-11956793

    and in the same article. Mass gatherings were banned. Hardly an attempt to achieve herd immunity.
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    Meanwhile, since @Telford is probably going to take me to task for taking the Lord's name in vain I might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb and post a link to this wot made I laugh... https://scontent.fbhx2-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.6435-9/194063796_10159429183224254_8906639950224782912_n.jpg?_nc_cat=107&ccb=1-3&_nc_sid=825194&_nc_ohc=ZM3wA2J3-9wAX-Hjs97&_nc_ht=scontent.fbhx2-1.fna&oh=2bf91a5c03a8519adcf7d69445d2d3c7&oe=60DB5FBC

    My heartfelt thanks for that. I am not keeping it to myself.
  • chrisstileschrisstiles Shipmate
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    I knew it. The buggers did advocate herd immunity and have been trying to gaslight us: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/uk-backed-off-on-herd-immunity-to-beat-coronavirus-we-need-it

    I don't recall anyone coming on tv and telling us to go out and create herd immunity.

    No-one is claiming that. However, I do recall, and this article confirms, that there was at one point an intention to allow herd immunity to build up through infection of people at the time considered non-vulnerable. Since then the government has denied that was ever policy, which reminds me that Oceania is and always has been at war with Eastasia.

    So it was never an actual policy. It was merely a suggestion.

    Nope. It was official policy of HM Government as far as we can tell from the available information. The fact that they never admitted as much (although they came quite close) doesn't change that fact.

    Insofar as no one actually said 'Our policy is herd immunity' they didn't admit as much, but it's a reasonable (and I'd argue only) inference from as far back as Patrick Vallance's interview with Sky News from March 13th of last year:

    https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-millions-of-britons-will-need-to-contract-covid-19-for-herd-immunity-11956793

    and in the same article. Mass gatherings were banned. Hardly an attempt to achieve herd immunity.

    Because they were of the opinion that they could fine tune the rate at which people caught it.
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    I knew it. The buggers did advocate herd immunity and have been trying to gaslight us: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/uk-backed-off-on-herd-immunity-to-beat-coronavirus-we-need-it

    I don't recall anyone coming on tv and telling us to go out and create herd immunity.

    No-one is claiming that. However, I do recall, and this article confirms, that there was at one point an intention to allow herd immunity to build up through infection of people at the time considered non-vulnerable. Since then the government has denied that was ever policy, which reminds me that Oceania is and always has been at war with Eastasia.

    So it was never an actual policy. It was merely a suggestion.

    Nope. It was official policy of HM Government as far as we can tell from the available information. The fact that they never admitted as much (although they came quite close) doesn't change that fact.

    Insofar as no one actually said 'Our policy is herd immunity' they didn't admit as much, but it's a reasonable (and I'd argue only) inference from as far back as Patrick Vallance's interview with Sky News from March 13th of last year:

    https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-millions-of-britons-will-need-to-contract-covid-19-for-herd-immunity-11956793

    and in the same article. Mass gatherings were banned. Hardly an attempt to achieve herd immunity.

    Because they were of the opinion that they could fine tune the rate at which people caught it.
    The Scientists?
  • alienfromzogalienfromzog Shipmate
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    I knew it. The buggers did advocate herd immunity and have been trying to gaslight us: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/uk-backed-off-on-herd-immunity-to-beat-coronavirus-we-need-it

    I don't recall anyone coming on tv and telling us to go out and create herd immunity.

    No-one is claiming that. However, I do recall, and this article confirms, that there was at one point an intention to allow herd immunity to build up through infection of people at the time considered non-vulnerable. Since then the government has denied that was ever policy, which reminds me that Oceania is and always has been at war with Eastasia.

    So it was never an actual policy. It was merely a suggestion.

    Nope. It was official policy of HM Government as far as we can tell from the available information. The fact that they never admitted as much (although they came quite close) doesn't change that fact.

    AFZ

    I see. An official policy that they never bothered to tell us about and you have no evidence for apart from the words of someone seeking his revenge

    Apart from the multiple government statements that alluded to it, apart from the way the government behaved. (See @Chrisstiles comment above).

    Nope, no evidence at all....

    AFZ

    I agree with your last statement

    (sigh)

    I know that sarcasm can be tricky on line, but still.

    This is the same nonsense as when you tried to explain that Windrush wasn't the government's fault because they never explicitly said they wanted to deport people or deny basic rights to people who had a absolute right to reside in the UK. Let's be clear, Cameron and May were specifically warned that these would be the consequences of their planned policy and they did it anyway.

    Cummings stated that 'herd immunity' or rather a misunderstanding of the concept, was government policy back then. This is 100% consistent with the government's actions and statements at the time.

    You got anything close to an argument yet?

    AFZ
  • EirenistEirenist Shipmate
    Speculating about Boris's views on theology is pointless. I don't think Boris believes in anything, except himselvf.
  • chrisstileschrisstiles Shipmate
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    I knew it. The buggers did advocate herd immunity and have been trying to gaslight us: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/uk-backed-off-on-herd-immunity-to-beat-coronavirus-we-need-it

    I don't recall anyone coming on tv and telling us to go out and create herd immunity.

    No-one is claiming that. However, I do recall, and this article confirms, that there was at one point an intention to allow herd immunity to build up through infection of people at the time considered non-vulnerable. Since then the government has denied that was ever policy, which reminds me that Oceania is and always has been at war with Eastasia.

    So it was never an actual policy. It was merely a suggestion.

    Nope. It was official policy of HM Government as far as we can tell from the available information. The fact that they never admitted as much (although they came quite close) doesn't change that fact.

    Insofar as no one actually said 'Our policy is herd immunity' they didn't admit as much, but it's a reasonable (and I'd argue only) inference from as far back as Patrick Vallance's interview with Sky News from March 13th of last year:

    https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-millions-of-britons-will-need-to-contract-covid-19-for-herd-immunity-11956793

    and in the same article. Mass gatherings were banned. Hardly an attempt to achieve herd immunity.

    Because they were of the opinion that they could fine tune the rate at which people caught it.
    The Scientists?

    The policymakers.
  • Doc TorDoc Tor Admin
    The government only backed off the 'herd immunity' strategy because they realised that bulldozers digging up Hyde Park for a mass grave wasn't a good look.

    Obviously, they weren't going to hold a press conference where they stated this. But that it was actual policy isn't in doubt.

    That they only went for the a bit-less-damaging managed spread (as opposed to an entirely possible elimination strategy) is still something that we shouldn't be grateful for. 150,000 dead as opposed to 500,000+ isn't exactly a victory.
  • Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    I knew it. The buggers did advocate herd immunity and have been trying to gaslight us: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/uk-backed-off-on-herd-immunity-to-beat-coronavirus-we-need-it

    I don't recall anyone coming on tv and telling us to go out and create herd immunity.

    No-one is claiming that. However, I do recall, and this article confirms, that there was at one point an intention to allow herd immunity to build up through infection of people at the time considered non-vulnerable. Since then the government has denied that was ever policy, which reminds me that Oceania is and always has been at war with Eastasia.

    So it was never an actual policy. It was merely a suggestion.

    Nope. It was official policy of HM Government as far as we can tell from the available information. The fact that they never admitted as much (although they came quite close) doesn't change that fact.

    Insofar as no one actually said 'Our policy is herd immunity' they didn't admit as much, but it's a reasonable (and I'd argue only) inference from as far back as Patrick Vallance's interview with Sky News from March 13th of last year:

    https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-millions-of-britons-will-need-to-contract-covid-19-for-herd-immunity-11956793

    and in the same article. Mass gatherings were banned. Hardly an attempt to achieve herd immunity.

    The Cheltenham Festival, 10-13 March 2020? Liverpool v Athletico Madrid, 11 March 2020, when Spain had possibly the worst surge in Europe after Italy? Both allowed to take place despite plenty of advice to cancel, and in the case of Cheltenham linked with a large number of Covid cases (unproveable due to lack of test and trace at the time). Should I mention the links between Dido Harding and the Jockey Club? There were plenty of 'chickenpox party' events like this until Johnson was persuaded that mass deaths were the most likely outcome of 'herd immunity', whether or not they used these words.
  • Leaving aside for a moment the Wedding Of The Year, which the cynic in me makes me think that Mrs Johnson is simply consolidating her position as Prime Minister, I was intrigued to see a report a few days ago in the Guardian regarding Beloved Leader's plan to build a super ship of state to assist with his plan for world domination.

    I can't find the link at the moment, but the idea is that the vessel (costing about £2m of taxpayers' money) will be a sort of flagship for Global Britain. It is to be crewed by the Royal Navy, and one suggestion for a name is Duke of Edinburgh, in honour, of course, of His late Royal Highness. Eminently appropriate, IMHO.

    However, ISTM that other suitable names could well be (say) Bozzymandias, King of Kings, or perhaps Bozzy McBozzyface...
    :wink:
  • Leaving aside for a moment the Wedding Of The Year, which the cynic in me makes me think that Mrs Johnson is simply consolidating her position as Prime Minister, I was intrigued to see a report a few days ago in the Guardian regarding Beloved Leader's plan to build a super ship of state to assist with his plan for world domination.

    I can't find the link at the moment, but the idea is that the vessel (costing about £2m of taxpayers' money) will be a sort of flagship for Global Britain. It is to be crewed by the Royal Navy, and one suggestion for a name is Duke of Edinburgh, in honour, of course, of His late Royal Highness. Eminently appropriate, IMHO.

    However, ISTM that other suitable names could well be (say) Bozzymandias, King of Kings, or perhaps Bozzy McBozzyface...
    :wink:

    £200 million, I believe. More here (The Guardian, so take your pick)
  • Ah yes - that's the linky I meant, and the £2m was a typo for £200m...
    :anguished:
  • chrisstileschrisstiles Shipmate
    Leaving aside for a moment the Wedding Of The Year, which the cynic in me makes me think that Mrs Johnson is simply consolidating her position as Prime Minister, I was intrigued to see a report a few days ago in the Guardian regarding Beloved Leader's plan to build a super ship of state to assist with his plan for world domination.

    I can see this disappearing and then re-appearing as a story every few years. Not unlike the stories of the Royal Navy ship that was heading towards the channel to give those French trawlers what for.
  • Leaving aside for a moment the Wedding Of The Year, which the cynic in me makes me think that Mrs Johnson is simply consolidating her position as Prime Minister, I was intrigued to see a report a few days ago in the Guardian regarding Beloved Leader's plan to build a super ship of state to assist with his plan for world domination.

    I can see this disappearing and then re-appearing as a story every few years. Not unlike the stories of the Royal Navy ship that was heading towards the channel to give those French trawlers what for.

    Maybe, but if the new Flagship does actually materialise, it will doubtless be (a) heavily armed, and (b) full of beads and trinkets to hand out to the natives of the countries to be conquered.

    It will also do very nicely, in due course, to convey Bozzymandias into a well-earned exile in Siberia...

    (Incidentally, I wondered if perhaps you meant that the Wedding Of The Year would be repeated every so often. I suspect that Cazziemandias may have other plans).
  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    That's ... underwhelming. I was hoping for something on a grander scale.
  • Doc TorDoc Tor Admin
    No idea where that's supposed to be pointing, @Dave W - but I'm pretty certain that's not it.
Sign In or Register to comment.