[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

You always speak such common sense.

Real prevention is better than PC correct BS.

There are virus threats from all over the world, you can't keep everyone out on a what if.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

You always speak such common sense.

Real prevention is better than PC correct BS.

It is common sense... right? We don't want an epidemic to turn into a pandemic so it needs to be contained. I can't understand how anyone could argue with that.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

There are virus threats from all over the world, you can't keep everyone out on a what if.

There are numerous classifications of 'virus' - all which pose widely differing degrees of risk to the citizens of this Country, and the Ebola virus just happens to be right up there with the most lethal. On top of this risk is the the very real potential cost to this country of treating victims of the virus, and the very considerable additional strain on a National Health Service which is already in its death throes.

And why can't we keep everyone out on a 'what if'? - if there is a 'clear and present danger' then this country's government would be failing its citizens if it did not take all available precautionary measures to prevent catastrophe- no matter how draconian that action may seem, no matter how 'politically incorrect' it is perceived to be, and no matter how many foreign countries citizens are involved. If such action prevents the death of just one British citizen then it will be justified.

As to 'Filling In a Survey' - what an absolute joke. Why don't we extend such a great cost-saving, PC idea?:

"Good Morning Mr Hamza -- Could you just confirm that you are not a twisted, hate-filled, fundamentalist agitator?...... That's fine. Welcome"

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

There are numerous classifications of 'virus' - all which pose widely differing degrees of risk to the citizens of this Country, and the Ebola virus just happens to be right up there with the most lethal. On top of this risk is the the very real potential cost to this country of treating victims of the virus, and the very considerable additional strain on a National Health Service which is already in its death throes.

And why can't we keep everyone out on a 'what if'? - if there is a 'clear and present danger' then this country's government would be failing its citizens if it did not take all available precautionary measures to prevent catastrophe- no matter how draconian that action may seem, no matter how 'politically incorrect' it is perceived to be, and no matter how many foreign countries citizens are involved. If such action prevents the death of just one British citizen then it will be justified.

As to 'Filling In a Survey' - what an absolute joke. Why don't we extend such a great cost-saving, PC idea?:

"Good Morning Mr Hamza -- Could you just confirm that you are not a twisted, hate-filled, fundamentalist agitator?...... That's fine. Welcome"

The questionnaire is bad enough but the fact that it isn't even compulsory just defies belief, why bother at all?

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

You mean lostalex was spouting OTT off topic nonsense?

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by JoshBB

We aren't going to die though. Our government hasn't banned west africans from entering the country, and we still have no ebola cases. Screening is enough tbh.

I was joking ffs.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

There are numerous classifications of 'virus' - all which pose widely differing degrees of risk to the citizens of this Country, and the Ebola virus just happens to be right up there with the most lethal. On top of this risk is the the very real potential cost to this country of treating victims of the virus, and the very considerable additional strain on a National Health Service which is already in its death throes.

And why can't we keep everyone out on a 'what if'? - if there is a 'clear and present danger' then this country's government would be failing its citizens if it did not take all available precautionary measures to prevent catastrophe- no matter how draconian that action may seem, no matter how 'politically incorrect' it is perceived to be, and no matter how many foreign countries citizens are involved. If such action prevents the death of just one British citizen then it will be justified.

As to 'Filling In a Survey' - what an absolute joke. Why don't we extend such a great cost-saving, PC idea?:

"Good Morning Mr Hamza -- Could you just confirm that you are not a twisted, hate-filled, fundamentalist agitator?...... That's fine. Welcome"

You are just scaremongering... and all these silly hypotheticals with the bizarre scenarios are pointless. In the worst affected areas nobody could afford to travel here, and it is contained in neighbouring areas so there really is no need for your arm flailing or attempts to politicise the issue.

[lily.]

Originally Posted by Livia

I'm guessing once we've had a couple of serious outbreaks here that come from West Africans we've had tick some boxes on a questionnaire at the airport, the Australian approach will seem a bit more sensible suddenly. If ebola was rife in, say, Norway, I'd want to see temporary visas revoked and 21 day quarantines. It's got nothing to do with what colour people are.

This.

[lily.]

Originally Posted by lostalex

And England let black people perform in their country, but funny enough didn't let any Africans immigrate there. What's worse, treating black people badly in society, or not even allowing any blacks into your society?

(let's also remember it was the British Aristocracy that profited greatly from the slave trade, and have never paid any reparations, no different than the Swiss saying they were "neutral" during ww2 but having no qualms about taking Nazi money.)

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

You are just scaremongering... and all these silly hypotheticals with the bizarre scenarios are pointless. In the worst affected areas nobody could afford to travel here, and it is contained in neighbouring areas so there really is no need for your arm flailing or attempts to politicise the issue.

I am not 'politicising' this issue, nor 'arm flailing', nor proffering 'pointless' 'silly hypotheticals' with 'bizarre scenarios', I am expressing my opinion, and in my opinion, the Australian stance is the only logical position when dealing with a disease as highly infectious and dangerous as the Ebola Virus Disease.

We are talking here of a disease which is highly contagious (whether it can or cannot be spread by air is not even universally agreed by ‘experts’.) extremely difficult to diagnose, can incubate for up to 21 days, and has no known cure. This being so; I will reiterate, that voluntary completion of a Questionnaire as an adequate preventative measure is total nonsense, and so typical of a British Government's political complacency.

I remember the BSE (Mad Cow) disease outbreak and the human variant CJD in the early 1980's. The - then Government - played down the risk and failed to seriously address the issue, resulting in a tragedy which took nearly 300 lives, cost the British taxpayer tens of billions of pounds, and seriously undermined our economy (though it took a 15 year long very expensive independent enquiry for the British Government to finally admit that “the failures of successive administrations had contributed to the BSE catastrophe”.)

Voluntary completion of a ‘questionnaire’ is wholly reliant on human integrity, yet I also remember the tragic consequences of a lax Government relying too much on that same human integrity during the BSE/CJD crisis referred to, when certain farmers who had been given a certificate that their cattle were BSE-Free, then secretly bought up dead infected beasts from other farms at rock bottom prices and sold these on to meat processing companies as ‘Government Certified BSE Free-Beef’.

Just how many of the 270 + innocent people who died from CJD, did so as a direct result of eating contaminated beef joints or beefburgers because of this practice is unknown, but it is perfectly reasonable to assume that some did.

And that is my point; just one solitary death in the UK from the Ebola Virus Disease which could have been prevented by the proper implementation of a realistic policy akin to the Australian one, is unforgiveable and bordering on criminal culpability on the part of the British Government.

One solitary fatality may just be a statistic, a small headline, but the heartbreak and grief behind it for the family and friends of the dead Man/Woman/Child is only too real, and if it can be prevented by following the Australian policy then I say to hell with ‘Political Correctness’. If it was one of my loved ones I would want blood.

In my opinion, people who refuse to accept the very real risk of this disease and therefore the logical need for the implementation of realistic preventative measures, ought to take off their ‘rose tinted glasses’, and similarly, it is the people who read ‘racism’ and ‘colour prejudice’ into those very measures who are actually the one's ‘politicising’ this issue.

Incidentally, I am half-caste ( a beautiful tanned colour) myself, so if I do not see any racism or colour prejudice in such measures, I cannot understand why anyone else would, because race, nationality, or colour has got nothing to do with it – just logic.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

I am not 'politicising' this issue, nor 'arm flailing', nor proffering 'pointless' 'silly hypotheticals' with 'bizarre scenarios', I am expressing my opinion, and in my opinion, the Australian stance is the only logical position when dealing with a disease as highly infectious and dangerous as the Ebola Virus Disease.

We are talking here of a disease which is highly contagious (whether it can or cannot be spread by air is not even universally agreed by ‘experts’.) extremely difficult to diagnose, can incubate for up to 21 days, and has no known cure. This being so; I will reiterate, that voluntary completion of a Questionnaire as an adequate preventative measure is total nonsense, and so typical of a British Government's political complacency.

I remember the BSE (Mad Cow) disease outbreak and the human variant CJD in the early 1980's. The - then Government - played down the risk and failed to seriously address the issue, resulting in a tragedy which took nearly 300 lives, cost the British taxpayer tens of billions of pounds, and seriously undermined our economy (though it took a 15 year long very expensive independent enquiry for the British Government to finally admit that “the failures of successive administrations had contributed to the BSE catastrophe”.)

Voluntary completion of a ‘questionnaire’ is wholly reliant on human integrity, yet I also remember the tragic consequences of a lax Government relying too much on that same human integrity during the BSE/CJD crisis referred to, when certain farmers who had been given a certificate that their cattle were BSE-Free, then secretly bought up dead infected beasts from other farms at rock bottom prices and sold these on to meat processing companies as ‘Government Certified BSE Free-Beef’.

Just how many of the 270 + innocent people who died from CJD, did so as a direct result of eating contaminated beef joints or beefburgers because of this practice is unknown, but it is perfectly reasonable to assume that some did.

And that is my point; just one solitary death in the UK from the Ebola Virus Disease which could have been prevented by the proper implementation of a realistic policy akin to the Australian one, is unforgiveable and bordering on criminal culpability on the part of the British Government.

One solitary fatality may just be a statistic, a small headline, but the heartbreak and grief behind it for the family and friends of the dead Man/Woman/Child is only too real, and if it can be prevented by following the Australian policy then I say to hell with ‘Political Correctness’. If it was one of my loved ones I would want blood.

In my opinion, people who refuse to accept the very real risk of this disease and therefore the logical need for the implementation of realistic preventative measures, ought to take off their ‘rose tinted glasses’, and similarly, it is the people who read ‘racism’ and ‘colour prejudice’ into those very measures who are actually the one's ‘politicising’ this issue.

Incidentally, I am half-caste ( a beautiful tanned colour) myself, so if I do not see any racism or colour prejudice in such measures, I cannot understand why anyone else would, because race, nationality, or colour has got nothing to do with it – just logic.

Yes you are politicising it with your constant referrals to things in your opinion being 'politically correct'.
It is not the 'only' logical stance as we are taking a stance too which is logical. I don't need your ebola summary as I'm aware of the potential risks which are very low..
Perceived failings in the handling of BSE or human variant CJD has little or no baring here as there is no similarity in the issues at all, nor does the fact you're mixed race.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Yes you are politicising it with your constant referrals to things in your opinion being 'politically correct'.
It is not the 'only' logical stance as we are taking a stance too which is logical. I don't need your ebola summary as I'm aware of the potential risks which are very low..
Perceived failings in the handling of BSE or human variant CJD has little or no baring here as there is no similarity in the issues at all, nor does the fact you're mixed race.

I cannot fail to notice how you seem to single my posts out to take issue with despite others expressing the same viewpoints - both here and on other threads - and I perceive a tidgy widgy smattering of illogical, barely suppressed anger in your responses, but I welcome it as long as we don't cloud the issues at hand.

"Yes you are politicising it with your constant referrals to things in your opinion being 'politically correct'."

I will repeat that I am not ‘politicising’ this issue in the sense that I believe you are accusing me of, but in any event, how can one not ‘politicise’ a subject, which, by its very nature is political?

I use the phrase ‘politically correct’ in the context of adding to a running thread on a subject where the idea of such a phrase has already been intimated by sever others and actually vocalised by Marsh; “We can all die from an epidemic but as long as we're seen as politically correct it's all good.”


I happen to strongly agree with Marsh and others here, that – in the absence of any other more logical reason – the real reason why the UK Government does not implement proper preventative measures in line with the Australians, is for fear of being judged as being ‘politically incorrect’.

"It is not the 'only' logical stance as we are taking a stance too which is logical."

Your idea of what is a logical stance and mine are evidently very different if you contend that allowing a free influx into the UK of people from the very part of the world where the EVD originated and is so rampant, with no other precaution than a ‘voluntary questionnaire’ is ‘logical’. Perhaps you could expound for me just why the stance you defend is logical? Please bear in mind that we are referring here to ‘preventative measures’ and not planned contingencies for dealing with an outbreak once it has already erupted in this country.

"I don't need your ebola summary as I'm aware of the potential risks which are very low."

I don’t need your constant misconceptions of what I write, nor your continual responses to those misconceptions which therefore do not address the points I have actually made, but which you seem to nonetheless demand should be accepted without question. I summarised the EBD as part of my post to help illustrate just why I hold the opinion I do, and not as any misguided superfluous attempt to educate you or any other reader.

As to your statement that the potential risks of the EBD are ‘very low’, perhaps you could expound this also please, because I cannot understand why any intelligent person would categorise such a deadly and highly contagious disease such as this in such terms.

"Perceived failings in the handling of BSE or human variant CJD has little or no baring here as there is no similarity in the issues at all, nor does the fact you're mixed race."

Again you have totally misunderstood what I have written and completely failed to perceive just why I wrote it, because there definitely is a similarity in the issues. Both are highly fatal diseases which demand to be addressed seriously by the state, yet BSE/CJD was not, resulting in its needless spread and in unnecessary fatalities, and neither is the EBD being properly addressed, which could result in it reaching the UK with unnecessary fatalities as a consequence.

This is why I used the BSE/CJD crisis as a comparator because there is a similarity in the issues. My point was that we have been down this road before and because lives were unnecessarily lost to CJD because of Government failure, then we ought to have learnt a lesson but clearly have not.

Further; I included the fact that lethal BSE contaminated beef was introduced into the human food supply chain by some unscrupulous farmers to illustrate that no Government’s ‘Front Line of Defence’ against such a potentially catastrophic disease as Ebola, should be solely a ‘voluntary questionnaire’ which is wholly reliant upon human integrity, because – as with the BSE/CJD example – human integrity just cannot be relied upon.

To answer your contention that my being of ‘mixed race’ has no bearing on the issue at hand – you are wrong. I point out the fact that I am of mixed race purely and specifically to illustrate that as such, I could be expected to have (and indeed do have) empathy with other ‘people of colour’ yet despite this I see no colour prejudice or racism in the UK adopting the same preventative measures as the Australians, and therefore cannot understand why some people – especially those who are 'non-coloured' – do find such unsavory characteristics in those measures. To me, as a British born and bred patriot – mixed race or not - such measures are logically vital for preventative purposes and have nothing at all to do with race or colour. It is purely about attempting to minimise the risk of the disease entering the UK and thereby maximising the prevention of potential fatalities.

Finally – lest you misquote me in any response – I did not introduce the question of colour nor race but merely encompassed such points in my post, because these points had already been validly raised by the following FM's on this thread:

'racial undertones.' -Cherie. "It's got nothing to do with what colour people are." - Livia. "I don't think Australia are being racist" - RubyMoo. "If America was as racist as Australian" - Lost alex. "Nothing racist about it at all" - Niamh. “Fear of being called racist, I assume” – Vicky. “I don't think its racist to stop letting people in/or putting them in quarantine for a short while. “ – Ninastar.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

I cannot fail to notice how you seem to single my posts out to take issue with despite others expressing the same viewpoints - both here and on other threads - and I perceive a tidgy widgy smattering of illogical, barely suppressed anger in your responses, but I welcome it as long as we don't cloud the issues at hand.

"Yes you are politicising it with your constant referrals to things in your opinion being 'politically correct'."

I will repeat that I am not ‘politicising’ this issue in the sense that I believe you are accusing me of, but in any event, how can one not ‘politicise’ a subject, which, by its very nature is political?

I use the phrase ‘politically correct’ in the context of adding to a running thread on a subject where the idea of such a phrase has already been intimated by sever others and actually vocalised by Marsh; “We can all die from an epidemic but as long as we're seen as politically correct it's all good.”


I happen to strongly agree with Marsh and others here, that – in the absence of any other more logical reason – the real reason why the UK Government does not implement proper preventative measures in line with the Australians, is for fear of being judged as being ‘politically incorrect’.

"It is not the 'only' logical stance as we are taking a stance too which is logical."

Your idea of what is a logical stance and mine are evidently very different if you contend that allowing a free influx into the UK of people from the very part of the world where the EVD originated and is so rampant, with no other precaution than a ‘voluntary questionnaire’ is ‘logical’. Perhaps you could expound for me just why the stance you defend is logical? Please bear in mind that we are referring here to ‘preventative measures’ and not planned contingencies for dealing with an outbreak once it has already erupted in this country.

"I don't need your ebola summary as I'm aware of the potential risks which are very low."

I don’t need your constant misconceptions of what I write, nor your continual responses to those misconceptions which therefore do not address the points I have actually made, but which you seem to nonetheless demand should be accepted without question. I summarised the EBD as part of my post to help illustrate just why I hold the opinion I do, and not as any misguided superfluous attempt to educate you or any other reader.

As to your statement that the potential risks of the EBD are ‘very low’, perhaps you could expound this also please, because I cannot understand why any intelligent person would categorise such a deadly and highly contagious disease such as this in such terms.

"Perceived failings in the handling of BSE or human variant CJD has little or no baring here as there is no similarity in the issues at all, nor does the fact you're mixed race."

Again you have totally misunderstood what I have written and completely failed to perceive just why I wrote it, because there definitely is a similarity in the issues. Both are highly fatal diseases which demand to be addressed seriously by the state, yet BSE/CJD was not, resulting in its needless spread and in unnecessary fatalities, and neither is the EBD being properly addressed, which could result in it reaching the UK with unnecessary fatalities as a consequence.

This is why I used the BSE/CJD crisis as a comparator because there is a similarity in the issues. My point was that we have been down this road before and because lives were unnecessarily lost to CJD because of Government failure, then we ought to have learnt a lesson but clearly have not.

Further; I included the fact that lethal BSE contaminated beef was introduced into the human food supply chain by some unscrupulous farmers to illustrate that no Government’s ‘Front Line of Defence’ against such a potentially catastrophic disease as Ebola, should be solely a ‘voluntary questionnaire’ which is wholly reliant upon human integrity, because – as with the BSE/CJD example – human integrity just cannot be relied upon.

To answer your contention that my being of ‘mixed race’ has no bearing on the issue at hand – you are wrong. I point out the fact that I am of mixed race purely and specifically to illustrate that as such, I could be expected to have (and indeed do have) empathy with other ‘people of colour’ yet despite this I see no colour prejudice or racism in the UK adopting the same preventative measures as the Australians, and therefore cannot understand why some people – especially those who are 'non-coloured' – do find such unsavory characteristics in those measures. To me, as a British born and bred patriot – mixed race or not - such measures are logically vital for preventative purposes and have nothing at all to do with race or colour. It is purely about attempting to minimise the risk of the disease entering the UK and thereby maximising the prevention of potential fatalities.

Finally – lest you misquote me in any response – I did not introduce the question of colour nor race but merely encompassed such points in my post, because these points had already been validly raised by the following FM's on this thread:

'racial undertones.' -Cherie. "It's got nothing to do with what colour people are." - Livia. "I don't think Australia are being racist" - RubyMoo. "If America was as racist as Australian" - Lost alex. "Nothing racist about it at all" - Niamh. “Fear of being called racist, I assume” – Vicky. “I don't think its racist to stop letting people in/or putting them in quarantine for a short while. “ – Ninastar.

I haven't singled you out for any preferential treatment and my responses are not illogical or angry simply my opinion.
Your preference for the term 'politically correct' I've noted across many threads which I why I picked up on it perhaps?
I have given reasons why extra measures are not necessary which may have been missed as my posts aren't as wordy or waffly as some, I have not and would not misquote you as it's a bugbear of mine.
Again the issue of BSE and vCJD is not relevant as the response to the threat was entirely different as the threat was entirely different. It did however originate here, had it been a prevalent viral strain rather than the dormant encephalopathy it is would we be as keen to close borders?

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by lily.

I don't recognize Godwin's law. We have democratically elected congressmen to make laws in my country, we don't need a half-bit moron like Godwin just making up laws on his own.

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

You mean lostalex was spouting OTT off topic nonsense?

no, Livia is very selective with her words. the basic tenants of the "White Australia Policy" were in place all the way as recently as the 90's.