Jump to content

Anti-vax nutcases


Recommended Posts

Well yes exactly, anti-vax conspiracy theories are VERY dangerous and DO lead to people getting sick and dying.


People are scratching their heads over why certain groups are slow to take up vaccines... then you see something like this. If a local church or religious leader is endangering the lives of their congregation, and therefore the wider community, I think it's something we should know about.


Maybe there are even legal implications? Not sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Due to some exceedingly dodgy 'trials' in the usa in the 60's and 70's there is an inherant distrust of the medical community in some groups. (google syphiliis trials in usa) It's hard to shake off this legacy and sadly these type of scaremongering reactivate this concern. There is also those bandwagon jumpers who should know better but are spouting off all sorts of nonsense in the interest of self promotion (a certain Mr Fox springs to mind)


apologies for typos

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, this is it, Chick. It kind of is hilarious... it reads like a parody of all the stupidest Covid and anti-vax conspiracy theories. But also highly worrying if people out there actually believe this nonsense.


I know it is a long shot, but I was hoping that someone might know if a local church/cult/etc were behind this. And also in practical/legal terms, whether anything can be done to shut down this kind of thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't seem to fall into any of the obvious hate-speech categories (no legislation against disliking Masons), nor does it incite violence (just stupidity).


So you have no legal remedy against it, in my view. It turns out lying (except in a court of law, under oath) isn't a crime. Can't think why politicians haven't thought of making it one!


Amended to say that there could be a possible suit for defamation (civil issue) if the Masons bothered. Burden of proof might be problematical however (that's the thing about conspiracy theories, demonstrating that they are in error)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

smooch Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Due to some exceedingly dodgy 'trials' in the usa

> in the 60's and 70's there is an inherant distrust

> of the medical community in some groups. (google

> syphiliis trials in usa) It's hard to shake off

> this legacy and sadly these type of scaremongering

> reactivate this concern.


This article touches on some of these issues:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56813982


And also things like Windrush damaging the credibility of the government.


So what can be done to fix these problems? It's a tough one. I'd say that better representation of minorities in government would be a good start. Also in the pharmaceutical industry and senior NHS management. Fundamentally comes down to equal access to quality education, I think.


Nevertheless, blatant misinformation and conspiracy theories are a massive problem here...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • There is no equivalence between One Dulwich purporting to be a local organisation speaking for local people, and actually properly constituted organisations such as The Dulwich Society. A 3 -second google search reveals the openly published names of the trustees of Dulwich Society, so I can make my own mind up as to whether these individuals are coming at local issues with a particular slant. I can read minutes of their meetings online, and whilst I might not agree with their every position, I can have confidence that they are an open and fundamentally democratic institution. There is absolutely nothing similar in terms of publicly accountable information to be found about One Dulwich - no idea of who is behind it, who pays for it ( it is clearly expensive), and on what basis they make their decisions.  Given the Police involvement in the intimidation of people with a public pro-LTN view ( for which there is no equivalence in terms of severity of any incident for those with an anti-LTN point of view), I can fully understand why, for Dulwich Society's traffic sub- committee only, they want a bit of online anonymity. I also find it slightly disturbing that when The Dulwich Society current leadership asked the 'grouping' pushing for changes within it for a meeting to discuss their concerns, they refused it. Given the recent experiences of organisations such as The National Trust, the question can be asked - is something similar going on here?   
    • I’ll post it to the DVLA if i don’t find the owner by midweek. 
    • The most recent one did, despite the council making it very difficult for anyone to object (which interestingly they were forced to change for the CPZ consultation and look how that went for them). I will dig out the responses for you when I have more time so you can enlighten yourself.   Ha ha...the language used by councils when they see the results of a consultation and need an out to ignore the views of locals...;-) Did you not notice how this only became a thing once the consultation had been run....one wonders why!? Earl you can bluster all you like but you cannot ignore the fact the council closed the junction to emergency services and put lives at risk and resisted all calls (from the emergency services) to open it for them. Surely you can't defend that  or are you willingly turning a blind eye to that too? Ha ha, which kind of begs the question then why so many of you get so vexed by One Dulwich? Surely you could compartmentalise their work if the above was true? I suspect it has a lot to do with the accountability that they are forcing and the fact some don't like it.
    • I believe around 57% of the 5,538 people who were part of the self selecting sample making up the original consultation, opposed the LTN. So just over 3,000 people. This was around 3 years ago now. I think there’s something like 40,000+ living across se22 and SE21 🤷‍♂️  The LTN is a minority interest at best. Whilst it’s an obsession for a small number on the transport thread who strongly oppose it, I suspect most locals quietly approve of the improvements made to that junction. …and we still haven’t heard who has supposedly been pressurising the emergency services and how (are we seriously going with the far left / the commies)? Is anyone willing to stand up and support the 'One' claim that people are partially covering their plates and driving through the filters due to inadequate signage? Again, it all sounds a little ridiculous / desperate. Feels like it may be time for them to start coming to terms with the changes.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...