Independent Leyton Orient Forum

Hopefully the Football league follows suit

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sport ... ssion=true

The PL are only pre-empting the government in doing this. I would not be surprised if the football league follow suit, at least at championship level, shortly after the PL confirm this.

I have doubts about the legality of this actually. There will definitely be a legal challenge, because it is tantamount to forcing an individual to have a medical procedure, which i don't believe is legal

Now the Premier League has announced this I would expect it to go right down the football pyramid and into non league .

Jack wrote: ↑Thu Jul 22, 2021 11:12 am I have doubts about the legality of this actually. There will definitely be a legal challenge, because it is tantamount to forcing an individual to have a medical procedure, which i don't believe is legal

Where's spen when you need him! I don't think there's anything illegal about it, it's not forcing anyone, they can go and find a new job that doesn't have that requirement.

Adz wrote: ↑Thu Jul 22, 2021 11:38 am

Jack wrote: ↑Thu Jul 22, 2021 11:12 am I have doubts about the legality of this actually. There will definitely be a legal challenge, because it is tantamount to forcing an individual to have a medical procedure, which i don't believe is legal

Where's spen when you need him! I don't think there's anything illegal about it, it's not forcing anyone, they can go and find a new job that doesn't have that requirement.

With respect, thats a ridiculous argument. If you are forced to have a medical procedure (possibly against your free will), and not having it means you cannot make a living at your chosen profession, then there must be legal ramifications. No doubt we shall see in due course

If a team routinely toured to Africa, they'd be within their rights to insist that they employees were inoculated against polio, smallpox etc and that they took malaria meds etc.

If an Airline insisted its employees had similar "medical procedures" as a condition of employment - because they had to have those in order to land in certain countries - I can't imagine there'd be much of a hoo-haa.

It's only contentious because of the anti-vax wing-nuts around at the moment.

StillSpike wrote: ↑Thu Jul 22, 2021 12:15 pm If a team routinely toured to Africa, they'd be within their rights to insist that they employees were inoculated against polio, smallpox etc and that they took malaria meds etc.

If an Airline insisted its employees had similar "medical procedures" as a condition of employment - because they had to have those in order to land in certain countries - I can't imagine there'd be much of a hoo-haa.

It's only contentious because of the anti-vax wing-nuts around at the moment.

Im not an anti vax 'nut' as you call it, im just concerned that our individual rights are gradually being whittled away, and this is another example. when people are forced to have medical procedures by their government ( who originally said this wouldnt happen), then that is the beginnings of authoritarianism. Do we really want to tread this dark path?

Do you really want to go back to a world in which polio and smallpox rear their ugly heads again? We already have restrictions on our freedom to travel around the world - we have to have various "medical procedures" (it's just an injection, but by all means keep making it sound big and scary by calling it a "procedure" ).

And do you think Airlines would be wrong to insist their employees have the necessary jabs to do their jobs ? You didn't address that point.

And while we're on the subject of Individual rights - what about my individual right to drive my car after a few pints - isn't that a case for personal responsibility rather than dictat?

StillSpike wrote: ↑Thu Jul 22, 2021 12:48 pm Do you really want to go back to a world in which polio and smallpox rear their ugly heads again? We already have restrictions on our freedom to travel around the world - we have to have various "medical procedures" (it's just an injection, but by all means keep making it sound big and scary by calling it a "procedure" ).

What on earth have polio and smallpox got to do with anything????????

I have made the point about personal freedoms and going down a dark path to authoritarianism, which obviously means nothing to you. Im not prepared to argue with you because its falling on deaf ears, other than to say, this vaccine you seem so anxious to laud as the greatest thing since sliced bread, actually isnt that effective. Patrick Vallance said, it was only about 60% effective against the new Delta variant. That isnt that good is it? Certainly not good enough that we should lose our freedom of choice for.

In due course, a better vaccine will no doubt become available, but at this moment in time, we have a rather inefficient vaccine.

Many people who have been double jabbed are struggling in hospital with Covid....I dont call that efficient

StillSpike wrote: ↑Thu Jul 22, 2021 12:15 pm If a team routinely toured to Africa, they'd be within their rights to insist that they employees were inoculated against polio, smallpox etc and that they took malaria meds etc.

If an Airline insisted its employees had similar "medical procedures" as a condition of employment - because they had to have those in order to land in certain countries - I can't imagine there'd be much of a hoo-haa.

It's only contentious because of the anti-vax wing-nuts around at the moment.

It’s nothing to do with anti vax wing nuts. I haven’t had the jab as it was tested on animals. Oh, and also knowing big Pharma pretty well, I hesitate to use a drug that has years of history never mind one that has come into existence in a few months. There are going to be some big court cases coming up.

Jack wrote: ↑Thu Jul 22, 2021 11:12 am I have doubts about the legality of this actually. There will definitely be a legal challenge, because it is tantamount to forcing an individual to have a medical procedure, which i don't believe is legal

Its not forcing anyone to do anything .

I start from the position that people are free not to have the jab, employers are free to stipulate conditions into the Contract of Employment, and the likes of shops & airlines and anywhere else are free to stipulate the conditions of entry. Freedoms have to work all ways.

So if an employer makes it a condition of employment to have the jab, either have it or go look elsewhere for employment, as one would with any other condition of employment one isn't happy with. I think the difficult area is where there is an attempt to change an existing contract of employment.

Nobody is forcing anybody to have a jab. Large event holders have a duty of care to their staff - and their businesses - towards protecting the welfare of ALL concerned.

All fans have bought is the right to watch an event or series of events. There will be something in the terms and conditions of sale that permits the change in entry requirements. Its the same with employers and visitors. I will not meet anyone at our offices that cannot prove they are double jabbed. I will still meet them off site, but again I will restrict the length of that meeting to protect the 6 other staff members in my offices. This sort of action is even more important in a small business, but we are seeing the effects of the virus and the pingdemic in work absenteeism and food shortages.

Jack wrote: ↑Thu Jul 22, 2021 12:42 pm

StillSpike wrote: ↑Thu Jul 22, 2021 12:15 pm If a team routinely toured to Africa, they'd be within their rights to insist that they employees were inoculated against polio, smallpox etc and that they took malaria meds etc.

If an Airline insisted its employees had similar "medical procedures" as a condition of employment - because they had to have those in order to land in certain countries - I can't imagine there'd be much of a hoo-haa.

It's only contentious because of the anti-vax wing-nuts around at the moment.

Im not an anti vax 'nut' as you call it, im just concerned that our individual rights are gradually being whittled away, and this is another example. when people are forced to have medical procedures by their government ( who originally said this wouldnt happen), then that is the beginnings of authoritarianism. Do we really want to tread this dark path?

Jack. Can only agree with you. In parliament they have asked about vaccine passports for flu. But this is virtually the same as flu now, just not killing as many people over last 4-5 months.

Still's Carenae wrote: ↑Thu Jul 22, 2021 4:42 pm

Jack wrote: ↑Thu Jul 22, 2021 12:42 pm

StillSpike wrote: ↑Thu Jul 22, 2021 12:15 pm If a team routinely toured to Africa, they'd be within their rights to insist that they employees were inoculated against polio, smallpox etc and that they took malaria meds etc.

If an Airline insisted its employees had similar "medical procedures" as a condition of employment - because they had to have those in order to land in certain countries - I can't imagine there'd be much of a hoo-haa.

It's only contentious because of the anti-vax wing-nuts around at the moment.

Im not an anti vax 'nut' as you call it, im just concerned that our individual rights are gradually being whittled away, and this is another example. when people are forced to have medical procedures by their government ( who originally said this wouldnt happen), then that is the beginnings of authoritarianism. Do we really want to tread this dark path?

Jack. Can only agree with you. In parliament they have asked about vaccine passports for flu. But this is virtually the same as flu now, just not killing as many people over last 4-5 months.

Its only not killing so many people because of double vaccinations .

Checkout countries with low vaccination rates who are not in Lockdowns .

People have the right not to have the vaccine but on the grounds of health and safety should not have he right to infect others, therefore I fully support the Premier League and any other clubs in the football pyramid that make it mandatory to only allow players and supporters into the ground that have both jabs and can prove it.
If supporters want to be stupid enough to put themselves at risk that's their personal choice but they have no right to put others at risk and therefore should not be allowed into football grounds.

Not bovvered, Mrs NES and I are fully jabbed as are No. 1 & No.2 daughter and No.1 son-in-law.

PoundhillO wrote: ↑Thu Jul 22, 2021 5:30 pm People have the right not to have the vaccine but on the grounds of health and safety should not have he right to infect others, therefore I fully support the Premier League and any other clubs in the football pyramid that make it mandatory to only allow players and supporters into the ground that have both jabs and can prove it.
If supporters want to be stupid enough to put themselves at risk that's their personal choice but they have no right to put others at risk and therefore should not be allowed into football grounds.

I may be wrong, but I thought those who are jabbed would be protected from those who are not. Otherwise what’s the point.

Story of O wrote: ↑Thu Jul 22, 2021 6:34 pm

PoundhillO wrote: ↑Thu Jul 22, 2021 5:30 pm People have the right not to have the vaccine but on the grounds of health and safety should not have he right to infect others, therefore I fully support the Premier League and any other clubs in the football pyramid that make it mandatory to only allow players and supporters into the ground that have both jabs and can prove it.
If supporters want to be stupid enough to put themselves at risk that's their personal choice but they have no right to put others at risk and therefore should not be allowed into football grounds.

I may be wrong, but I thought those who are jabbed would be protected from those who are not. Otherwise what’s the point.

I think it has been stated that even those with both jabs are not 100% protected.Therfore anyone coming into the ground that has not been vaccinated are a higher potential risk to other fans and anyone else in the stadium than those that have had both jabs.

It’s a pretty mental situation regardless of what side of the fence you’re on.

This time in history will be looked back on and laughed at with what this government has done and is doing.

Will ban people without 3 jabs soon

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/ ... antibodies

Referring to the original post I can't see this being workable. You wait until a number of high profile players refuse this experimental vaccine. Then what?
This is soundbite from the PL. All they are interested in is profile and money. Big star players forced out will not be a good look for them and will dilute their product.

LeytonstoneRed07 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 23, 2021 8:27 am Referring to the original post I can't see this being workable. You wait until a number of high profile players refuse this experimental vaccine. Then what?
This is soundbite from the PL. All they are interested in is profile and money. Big star players forced out will not be a good look for them and will dilute their product.

Big star players having to isolate with covid or being out for months has got to be a worse look?