certainly upset me… I’ve lost the thread on the Sénat…
1 Like
I think we can safely say that Mr Deacon enjoys provocative subjects and revels in the attention that all of us, me included, have given him. We should know better by now - l put it down to “Bored in the house - in the house bored” Syndrome. (Should have stayed in the garden and cut that damned hedge)
1 Like
Their name is irrelevant, anyone can type anything @James needs to check the IP address.
I am deeply shocked by the venomous tone of some of your responses just because my views challenge your perception of the current situation.
Are we not adult enough to accept that there just may be an alternative narrative to the one espoused by the bbc and suchlike? - one that is at least worth looking at and considering?
What is the word I am looking for which describes the action of one who feels so threatened by considering that there may be an alternative possibility to that in which they have currently pinned their flag to, that they become so aggressive?
What name was your previous account under?
hello James
It was the one where I suggested that people watched David Icke’s interview on londonreal.tv
He too was only trying to make an alternative point.
But you took it down even quicker than youtube took down his video and then blocked my access to the forum so we could not even discuss it.
I would have thought it more useful to keep this thread on topic than to make a point of vilifying me because my views may be making some feel a little uncomfortable.
If only support of the establishment view is allowed to be expressed here, then please say so and I will refrain from posting.
Andrew, this site has rules which you may or may not agree with but as it has 0000’s of members it must be acceptable to many and I would venture to say that it is now probably the most successful Francophile forum still going. There is no ‘establishment view’ IMO but if anyone posts a load of c**p it will get shot down and rightly so. Give the forum time and you’ll get used to the nuances and who knows you might even enjoy coming on here.
1 Like
That account was in another name wasn’t it?
There is perhaps a calm debate to be had about the different approaches. I was listening to a piece on the radio yesterday which was translating damage to a county’s economy to an increase in deaths, presumably because of reduced public investment. And presumably that would also affect the poor more. So in years to come perhaps we may find that there will be little difference between countries who have put the economy first and those who have put people first?
Sorry Jane, I did reply to this last night - but alas my post was taken down.
I agree with you that calm debate is what is needed. You say that there may be little difference between countries who ‘have put the economy first and those who have put people first’.
In fact it is even simpler than that - you can achieve both.
This virus needs to run its course with everyone except the most vulnerable (those with compromised immune systems) getting it so a natural herd immunity is achieved quickly. Most people already have it or will get it without any symptoms, a few will get mild symptoms and a tiny few serious symptoms and even fewer will die.
With lock up presently in most countries, the thing is being dragged out, physical and mental abuse at home is rampant, people are sick because they cannot get treatment for other conditions, being locked in is not conducive for building up ones immunity, businesses are failing and people losing their jobs at an incredible rate. Food supply chains are breaking down and millions will suffer starvation in poorer counties due to collaps in food exports. The overall death rate from the virus in both lock down and non lockdown countries will be the same. In fact the government never said that lockdown will save lives - it only said that it will slowdown the spread and take the pressure off the NHS (and we have seen how busy they have been !).
Furthermore, after restrictions are lifted - what will happen - of course then people will begin to mix again, more people will get unwell and the figures will spike again and there will be an even more draconian lockdown.
The lockdown is ill advised, and does not work (Neil Ferguson and the former Scottish health minister know this and behaved accordingly in their private lives)
So yes Jane, I believe that countries can both put their economy and their people first but locking people up is not the way to do it.
Can you please give us the links / official documentation that shows this Andrew
I see no evidence of your post being “taken down”.
I’m still intrigued to know under what name you were removed last time…
1 Like
This assertion is patently not true. It has been the punch-line in the hammered out Government slogan for weeks.
The lock down was intended to flatten the peak reducing demand on the NHS and therefore save lives as the NHS would be better able to cope
Well, thank heavens for small mercies… 
I’ve not seen a Post “taken-down”… but for people… mmm… that’s another matter intirely… 
Perhaps we can all ignore what the Anonymous person has posted… and get on with important things… 
2 Likes
The link between “Stay at home” and “Save Lives” was strongly implied and the link between the two was emphasised by the way the slogan was cleverly constructed. The “Protect the NHS” element was a reinforcer, but not necessarily a link in the chain of causation.
In fact, the statement was often made that “By staying at home you are protecting yourself and others from the virus, and saving lives.” The “Protect the NHS” element was omitted, weakened by the cavernously empty Nightingale hospitals, and the huge rise in Care Home deaths.
Sorry Peter I don’t get what you are saying, don’t you agree with the lockdown?
Don’t worry about it Eddie, you get used to it! 
4 Likes
There’s nothing in my comment that could possible lead you to that conclusion, Eddie. But to put your mind at ease, the lock-down is effective in controlling person-to-person spread, so I strongly support it.
The state of the NHS has nothing to do with controlling spread outside the confines of hospitals unless you include the lack of adequate PPE and the lack of testing of front-line staff.
Peter I said I didn’t understand what you were saying,so I didn’t come to any conclusions about if you were pro or anti lockdown at all. Glad to hear you are for it
4 Likes