No Vaccination Novak Djokovic

LawrieAbrahams said:

lordromford said:

I see Novax has started the PR offensive with an interview with the Beeb.
Claiming his stance is all about freedom of choice.
Says he’d sacrifice the French Open and Wimbledon to make his stand.  
Distanced himself from anti-vax groups.
Expressed disappointment in his ‘colleagues’ at the Oz open. Whatever that means.
Obviously, no questions were asked about his dubious “positive test” in December, or about his twatting about at functions without a mask after the fact, but there you go.

Call me an old cynic, but the guy just seems like a liar who came unstuck because he thought he was untouchable. Now he’s been wheeled out by his advisors to start reparation.

The guys a twat. Fuck him.

I agree with your conclusion. 

Agreed. Which is worse, getting a fraudulent positive test or going out and mixing with people when positive? It has to be one or the other. 

Makes me wonder what else he has lied about or done previously

Valley11 said:

bobmunro said:

Valley11 said:

I have to say, I agree with his point about pro choice not anti-vax.

Why can’t we live in a society where you either make the choice to have it, as I have. 

Or you don’t, and that’s fine.
There’s so much anger about. 

While the likes of Boris J piss about with our country, the worker bees fight it out amongst themselves. 

I don't think many people disagree with free choice and he is absolutely within his rights not to take the vaccine. He just has to accept the consequences of that choice.

If he had come out prior to the Aussie Open and said something like "I respect the sovereign rights of Australia to impose entry limitations and as I have for the time being decided against taking the vaccine then I will regrettably withdraw from this year's tournament" then I believe that would have been reasonable and accepted. He didn't - it appears he opted to cheat the system.

I think the fact he’s now widely being referred to as Novax - not by you - kind of undermines the point about being within his rights not to take the vaccine.

 

Moving away from the specifics of ND’s case, I disagree with the idea that a country should ban people entering because they haven’t had the vaccine - further removing the idea of choice. That’s a seriously dangerous path to tread, particularly for a once free-thinking, optimistic and youthful country like Australia. 

As I say, I’m vaccinated. But a world of division is being created here and it is terrifying. It will not end well. 

Garrymanilow said:

Valley11 said:

bobmunro said:

Valley11 said:

I have to say, I agree with his point about pro choice not anti-vax.

Why can’t we live in a society where you either make the choice to have it, as I have. 

Or you don’t, and that’s fine.
There’s so much anger about. 

While the likes of Boris J piss about with our country, the worker bees fight it out amongst themselves. 

I don't think many people disagree with free choice and he is absolutely within his rights not to take the vaccine. He just has to accept the consequences of that choice.

If he had come out prior to the Aussie Open and said something like "I respect the sovereign rights of Australia to impose entry limitations and as I have for the time being decided against taking the vaccine then I will regrettably withdraw from this year's tournament" then I believe that would have been reasonable and accepted. He didn't - it appears he opted to cheat the system.

I think the fact he’s now widely being referred to as Novax - not by you - kind of undermines the point about being within his rights not to take the vaccine.

 

Moving away from the specifics of ND’s case, I disagree with the idea that a country should ban people entering because they haven’t had the vaccine - further removing the idea of choice. That’s a seriously dangerous path to tread, particularly for a once free-thinking, optimistic and youthful country like Australia. 

As I say, I’m vaccinated. But a world of division is being created here and it is terrifying. It will not end well. 

I don't think you're really clear on what choice is. No-one is making Djokovic do anything. However other groups, be they countries, businesses, clubs or individuals are also completely free to make their own choices based on what they're comfortable with, and that can extend to excluding others based on their requirements. To join the WI you have to be a woman, and that has been the rule since 1897. To work in the UK if not a citizen you need a valid visa. To go to South Africa you need a yellow fever vaccination certificate as well as confirmation that your primary courses and boosters (MMR etc) are up to date. To join this forum you need a valid email address. All of these things are entry requirements in some form or another, and you have the choice to fulfil them or not. Want to log on to Charlton Life from Madagascar? Get your jabs and sign up to Gmail. Or don't, the choice is yours. We rightly have limitations on exclusions based on protected characteristics like race, but overall if you choose to exclude yourself from something like travel, work or a social group then that's on you. What people like Djokovic want is for their choices to be completely without consequence. He wants to do what he wants and he's angry that that stops him from being able to interact in certain ways. It's his choices and the choices of the group or place or person he wants to interact with clashing. If anything, Djokovic is the one who is anti-choice, because he wants to take away the ability to decide you don't want to engage with people who haven't met your requirements.

Also, if you're worried that Australia has stopped being free-thinking and optimistic based on not wanting people to enter the country unvaccinated, you might want to look into their ongoing policy of holding asylum seekers in immigration detention centres for an average of 689 days. Some people have spent more than 10 years there. Australia pulled up the drawbridge a long, long time before Covid vaccines came about.

It's clear a lot of people on here don't really know what freedom and choice actually means. 

They think it only goes one way and means that people can make whatever choices they want without consequences. 

Not true, if you have the freedom and the choice to do something. Everyone else has the freedom and choice to judge you for it. 

SELR_addicks said:

Garrymanilow said:

Valley11 said:

bobmunro said:

Valley11 said:

I have to say, I agree with his point about pro choice not anti-vax.

Why can’t we live in a society where you either make the choice to have it, as I have. 

Or you don’t, and that’s fine.
There’s so much anger about. 

While the likes of Boris J piss about with our country, the worker bees fight it out amongst themselves. 

I don't think many people disagree with free choice and he is absolutely within his rights not to take the vaccine. He just has to accept the consequences of that choice.

If he had come out prior to the Aussie Open and said something like "I respect the sovereign rights of Australia to impose entry limitations and as I have for the time being decided against taking the vaccine then I will regrettably withdraw from this year's tournament" then I believe that would have been reasonable and accepted. He didn't - it appears he opted to cheat the system.

I think the fact he’s now widely being referred to as Novax - not by you - kind of undermines the point about being within his rights not to take the vaccine.

 

Moving away from the specifics of ND’s case, I disagree with the idea that a country should ban people entering because they haven’t had the vaccine - further removing the idea of choice. That’s a seriously dangerous path to tread, particularly for a once free-thinking, optimistic and youthful country like Australia. 

As I say, I’m vaccinated. But a world of division is being created here and it is terrifying. It will not end well. 

I don't think you're really clear on what choice is. No-one is making Djokovic do anything. However other groups, be they countries, businesses, clubs or individuals are also completely free to make their own choices based on what they're comfortable with, and that can extend to excluding others based on their requirements. To join the WI you have to be a woman, and that has been the rule since 1897. To work in the UK if not a citizen you need a valid visa. To go to South Africa you need a yellow fever vaccination certificate as well as confirmation that your primary courses and boosters (MMR etc) are up to date. To join this forum you need a valid email address. All of these things are entry requirements in some form or another, and you have the choice to fulfil them or not. Want to log on to Charlton Life from Madagascar? Get your jabs and sign up to Gmail. Or don't, the choice is yours. We rightly have limitations on exclusions based on protected characteristics like race, but overall if you choose to exclude yourself from something like travel, work or a social group then that's on you. What people like Djokovic want is for their choices to be completely without consequence. He wants to do what he wants and he's angry that that stops him from being able to interact in certain ways. It's his choices and the choices of the group or place or person he wants to interact with clashing. If anything, Djokovic is the one who is anti-choice, because he wants to take away the ability to decide you don't want to engage with people who haven't met your requirements.

Also, if you're worried that Australia has stopped being free-thinking and optimistic based on not wanting people to enter the country unvaccinated, you might want to look into their ongoing policy of holding asylum seekers in immigration detention centres for an average of 689 days. Some people have spent more than 10 years there. Australia pulled up the drawbridge a long, long time before Covid vaccines came about.

It's clear a lot of people on here don't really know what freedom and choice actually means. 

They think it only goes one way and means that people can make whatever choices they want without consequences. 

Not true, if you have the freedom and the choice to do something. Everyone else has the freedom and choice to judge you for it. 

All rights are caveated by responsibilities...

Or, in other words, well said that man!

SELR_addicks said:

Nice bit of PR for Novak set up by a huge PR firm with the BBC. 

Allowed to air his views without much debate to millions of people in the UK. So much for being cancelled.

The Beeb are often a bit of a soft touch with these sort of interviews. Didn’t see it myself, but Djokovic’s team would have had a say (or a veto) in who conducted the interview.
Amol Rajan is Media editor at the Beeb, and was probably never going to be someone who’d ask the toughest questions. They would have steered clear of anyone with a medical brief (health editor for example) or anyone with a Paxman like reputation. An Emily Maitless for example, as mentioned by Prague. 

JamesSeed said:

SELR_addicks said:

Nice bit of PR for Novak set up by a huge PR firm with the BBC. 

Allowed to air his views without much debate to millions of people in the UK. So much for being cancelled.

The Beeb are often a bit of a soft touch with these sort of interviews. Didn’t see it myself, but Djokovic’s team would have had a say (or a veto) in who conducted the interview.
Amol Rajan is Media editor at the Beeb, and was probably never going to be someone who’d ask the toughest questions. They would have steered clear of anyone with a medical brief (health editor for example) or anyone with a Paxman like reputation. An Emily Maitless for example, as mentioned by Prague. 

So when it runs you can guarantee a small percentage of the audience will be persuaded by his arguments, but it’s unlikely anyone will be persuaded to switch the other way. 

I can see that the BBC are glad to have a scoop, but if the interviewee is allowed to choose the interviewer and veto the questions he doesn't want to answer, I would have preferred the BBC to have left this one to the commercial sector. Where is value for money for the licence payer here?

@Garrymanilow one of the best summaries on this topic I have read anywhere. Bravo.

@JamesSeed aren’t you aware that Rajan has for over a year been an anchor on the Radio 4 Today prog whoch is supposedly still a “flagship” current affairs prog? I dont think anyone had much of a problem with his Media Show work, but he’s persuaded the Beeb that he’s ready for much heavier duty stuff. Probably sold them on being “young” and “modern” and not seen as “w—e” ( i refuse to write that crime against the English language word in full)

PragueAddick said:

@Garrymanilow one of the best summaries on this topic I have read anywhere. Bravo.

@JamesSeed aren’t you aware that Rajan has for over a year been an anchor on the Radio 4 Today prog whoch is supposedly still a “flagship” current affairs prog? I dont think anyone had much of a problem with his Media Show work, but he’s persuaded the Beeb that he’s ready for much heavier duty stuff. Probably sold them on being “young” and “modern” and not seen as “w—e” ( i refuse to write that crime against the English language word in full)

I went off R4 Today prog two or three years ago. Rarely listen now. Agree with your comment about Rajan though. 

JamesSeed said:

RickAddick said:

JamesSeed said:

SELR_addicks said:

Nice bit of PR for Novak set up by a huge PR firm with the BBC. 

Allowed to air his views without much debate to millions of people in the UK. So much for being cancelled.

The Beeb are often a bit of a soft touch with these sort of interviews. Didn’t see it myself, but Djokovic’s team would have had a say (or a veto) in who conducted the interview.
Amol Rajan is Media editor at the Beeb, and was probably never going to be someone who’d ask the toughest questions. They would have steered clear of anyone with a medical brief (health editor for example) or anyone with a Paxman like reputation. An Emily Maitless for example, as mentioned by Prague. 

So when it runs you can guarantee a small percentage of the audience will be persuaded by his arguments, but it’s unlikely anyone will be persuaded to switch the other way. 

I can see that the BBC are glad to have a scoop, but if the interviewee is allowed to choose the interviewer and veto the questions he doesn't want to answer, I would have preferred the BBC to have left this one to the commercial sector. Where is value for money for the licence payer here?

The same problem might have arisen; Djokovic would still have wanted a veto, and ITV would probably have caved in and given the interview to a high profile sports guy, rather than lose the interview. They’d know the interview would get decent ratings, and money talks. 

Not bothered what the commercial TV sector pay for the interview,  assuming Djokovic was paid a fee.
My objection is the BBC using TV license money (if this was the case) to give Djokovic publicly, if the BBC is prevented from asking questions that Djokovic doesn't want to answer. 
Better ways for a supposedly hard up BBC to spent the license cash.

If no money changed hands, there is still an issue, as the BBC can't be impartial if they can't ask the pertinent questions. 

JamesSeed said:

RickAddick said:

JamesSeed said:

RickAddick said:

JamesSeed said:

SELR_addicks said:

Nice bit of PR for Novak set up by a huge PR firm with the BBC. 

Allowed to air his views without much debate to millions of people in the UK. So much for being cancelled.

The Beeb are often a bit of a soft touch with these sort of interviews. Didn’t see it myself, but Djokovic’s team would have had a say (or a veto) in who conducted the interview.
Amol Rajan is Media editor at the Beeb, and was probably never going to be someone who’d ask the toughest questions. They would have steered clear of anyone with a medical brief (health editor for example) or anyone with a Paxman like reputation. An Emily Maitless for example, as mentioned by Prague. 

So when it runs you can guarantee a small percentage of the audience will be persuaded by his arguments, but it’s unlikely anyone will be persuaded to switch the other way. 

I can see that the BBC are glad to have a scoop, but if the interviewee is allowed to choose the interviewer and veto the questions he doesn't want to answer, I would have preferred the BBC to have left this one to the commercial sector. Where is value for money for the licence payer here?

The same problem might have arisen; Djokovic would still have wanted a veto, and ITV would probably have caved in and given the interview to a high profile sports guy, rather than lose the interview. They’d know the interview would get decent ratings, and money talks. 

Not bothered what the commercial TV sector pay for the interview,  assuming Djokovic was paid a fee.
My objection is the BBC using TV license money (if this was the case) to give Djokovic publicly, if the BBC is prevented from asking questions that Djokovic doesn't want to answer. 
Better ways for a supposedly hard up BBC to spent the license cash.

If no money changed hands, there is still an issue, as the BBC can't be impartial if they can't ask the pertinent questions. 

The impartiality rules only apply to news programmes, and they apply equally to ITV news programmes.
The Beeb are having their news coverage budgets slashed year on year. The government doesn’t like being criticised, even when the criticism is justified and impartial. They can’t affect ITV, so they concentrate on the BBC (and are attempting to damage C4).  In a true democracy you need a free news media, but that’s currently under real threat. 

The issue is the BBC aren't impartial

PrincessFiona said:

JamesSeed said:

RickAddick said:

JamesSeed said:

RickAddick said:

JamesSeed said:

SELR_addicks said:

Nice bit of PR for Novak set up by a huge PR firm with the BBC. 

Allowed to air his views without much debate to millions of people in the UK. So much for being cancelled.

The Beeb are often a bit of a soft touch with these sort of interviews. Didn’t see it myself, but Djokovic’s team would have had a say (or a veto) in who conducted the interview.
Amol Rajan is Media editor at the Beeb, and was probably never going to be someone who’d ask the toughest questions. They would have steered clear of anyone with a medical brief (health editor for example) or anyone with a Paxman like reputation. An Emily Maitless for example, as mentioned by Prague. 

So when it runs you can guarantee a small percentage of the audience will be persuaded by his arguments, but it’s unlikely anyone will be persuaded to switch the other way. 

I can see that the BBC are glad to have a scoop, but if the interviewee is allowed to choose the interviewer and veto the questions he doesn't want to answer, I would have preferred the BBC to have left this one to the commercial sector. Where is value for money for the licence payer here?

The same problem might have arisen; Djokovic would still have wanted a veto, and ITV would probably have caved in and given the interview to a high profile sports guy, rather than lose the interview. They’d know the interview would get decent ratings, and money talks. 

Not bothered what the commercial TV sector pay for the interview,  assuming Djokovic was paid a fee.
My objection is the BBC using TV license money (if this was the case) to give Djokovic publicly, if the BBC is prevented from asking questions that Djokovic doesn't want to answer. 
Better ways for a supposedly hard up BBC to spent the license cash.

If no money changed hands, there is still an issue, as the BBC can't be impartial if they can't ask the pertinent questions. 

The impartiality rules only apply to news programmes, and they apply equally to ITV news programmes.
The Beeb are having their news coverage budgets slashed year on year. The government doesn’t like being criticised, even when the criticism is justified and impartial. They can’t affect ITV, so they concentrate on the BBC (and are attempting to damage C4).  In a true democracy you need a free news media, but that’s currently under real threat. 

The issue is the BBC aren't impartial

Well...

JamesSeed said:

PrincessFiona said:

JamesSeed said:

RickAddick said:

JamesSeed said:

RickAddick said:

JamesSeed said:

SELR_addicks said:

Nice bit of PR for Novak set up by a huge PR firm with the BBC. 

Allowed to air his views without much debate to millions of people in the UK. So much for being cancelled.

The Beeb are often a bit of a soft touch with these sort of interviews. Didn’t see it myself, but Djokovic’s team would have had a say (or a veto) in who conducted the interview.
Amol Rajan is Media editor at the Beeb, and was probably never going to be someone who’d ask the toughest questions. They would have steered clear of anyone with a medical brief (health editor for example) or anyone with a Paxman like reputation. An Emily Maitless for example, as mentioned by Prague. 

So when it runs you can guarantee a small percentage of the audience will be persuaded by his arguments, but it’s unlikely anyone will be persuaded to switch the other way. 

I can see that the BBC are glad to have a scoop, but if the interviewee is allowed to choose the interviewer and veto the questions he doesn't want to answer, I would have preferred the BBC to have left this one to the commercial sector. Where is value for money for the licence payer here?

The same problem might have arisen; Djokovic would still have wanted a veto, and ITV would probably have caved in and given the interview to a high profile sports guy, rather than lose the interview. They’d know the interview would get decent ratings, and money talks. 

Not bothered what the commercial TV sector pay for the interview,  assuming Djokovic was paid a fee.
My objection is the BBC using TV license money (if this was the case) to give Djokovic publicly, if the BBC is prevented from asking questions that Djokovic doesn't want to answer. 
Better ways for a supposedly hard up BBC to spent the license cash.

If no money changed hands, there is still an issue, as the BBC can't be impartial if they can't ask the pertinent questions. 

The impartiality rules only apply to news programmes, and they apply equally to ITV news programmes.
The Beeb are having their news coverage budgets slashed year on year. The government doesn’t like being criticised, even when the criticism is justified and impartial. They can’t affect ITV, so they concentrate on the BBC (and are attempting to damage C4).  In a true democracy you need a free news media, but that’s currently under real threat. 

The issue is the BBC aren't impartial

Well the news sort of is although, as ever, the right thinks it’s left wing and the left thinks it’s right wing. Personally I’d say they give the government an easy ride, but it was ever thus. Comes with being a state owned broadcaster I guess. 

Still, I’d much rather have the Beeb than farm out the news to vested interests with deep pockets, like Rupert Murdoch. Remember, they don’t get involved in TV news to make a profit, so what’s in it for them?

The BBC news tends to be right of centre economically and geo-politically, whilst left of centre when it comes to human rights, social issues, welfare, etc.

So right wing viewers will complain the BBC is too left wing as they see it as too "woke", too willing to pander to minorities, etc. Whilst a left wing viewer will complain the BBC gives the government far too much leeway and overly promotes (or doesn't question) the status-quo when it comes to global economics, modern capitalism and western democracy.

As has been said many times, if the BBC is pissing off people on both sides then it's probably doing it's job.

JamesSeed said:

PrincessFiona said:

JamesSeed said:

RickAddick said:

JamesSeed said:

RickAddick said:

JamesSeed said:

SELR_addicks said:

Nice bit of PR for Novak set up by a huge PR firm with the BBC. 

Allowed to air his views without much debate to millions of people in the UK. So much for being cancelled.

The Beeb are often a bit of a soft touch with these sort of interviews. Didn’t see it myself, but Djokovic’s team would have had a say (or a veto) in who conducted the interview.
Amol Rajan is Media editor at the Beeb, and was probably never going to be someone who’d ask the toughest questions. They would have steered clear of anyone with a medical brief (health editor for example) or anyone with a Paxman like reputation. An Emily Maitless for example, as mentioned by Prague. 

So when it runs you can guarantee a small percentage of the audience will be persuaded by his arguments, but it’s unlikely anyone will be persuaded to switch the other way. 

I can see that the BBC are glad to have a scoop, but if the interviewee is allowed to choose the interviewer and veto the questions he doesn't want to answer, I would have preferred the BBC to have left this one to the commercial sector. Where is value for money for the licence payer here?

The same problem might have arisen; Djokovic would still have wanted a veto, and ITV would probably have caved in and given the interview to a high profile sports guy, rather than lose the interview. They’d know the interview would get decent ratings, and money talks. 

Not bothered what the commercial TV sector pay for the interview,  assuming Djokovic was paid a fee.
My objection is the BBC using TV license money (if this was the case) to give Djokovic publicly, if the BBC is prevented from asking questions that Djokovic doesn't want to answer. 
Better ways for a supposedly hard up BBC to spent the license cash.

If no money changed hands, there is still an issue, as the BBC can't be impartial if they can't ask the pertinent questions. 

The impartiality rules only apply to news programmes, and they apply equally to ITV news programmes.
The Beeb are having their news coverage budgets slashed year on year. The government doesn’t like being criticised, even when the criticism is justified and impartial. They can’t affect ITV, so they concentrate on the BBC (and are attempting to damage C4).  In a true democracy you need a free news media, but that’s currently under real threat. 

The issue is the BBC aren't impartial

Well the news sort of is although, as ever, the right thinks it’s left wing and the left thinks it’s right wing. Personally I’d say they give the government an easy ride, but it was ever thus. Comes with being a state owned broadcaster I guess. 

Still, I’d much rather have the Beeb than farm out the news to vested interests with deep pockets, like Rupert Murdoch. Remember, they don’t get involved in TV news to make a profit, so what’s in it for them?

There is no way the BBC news is right wing. Sky is far worse than it used to be,: one too fat left and too woke

Why would Djokovic not be able to play at Wimbledon?

SELR_addicks said:

Is it in the public interest for the BBC to allow Djokovic to spill his anti-vax nonsense while trying to repair his damaged reputation? 

I personally don't think so. But perhaps the BBC have one eye on Wimbledon and trying to repair Novax's reputation so they can advertise him as a big name appearing this summer. 

Cynic me? Never. 

ND didn't spill much if any anti-vax nonsense, if you watched and listened.
He came up with the pretty daft non-sequitur that he chooses not to have "the vaccine"
There are dozens from which he could choose.
Someone of his financial means has access to whatever health care he likes
He's young, well nourished and supremely fit so probably won't get seriously ill from any of the variants, so far
He contends he's tested positive for the infection, more than once.  He probably developed some specific antibodies.  He'll probably retain some, he'll probably be able to fight off subsequent infections.
Unvaccinated he very probably has none of the protections any of those vaccines convey.

He is on record as being a dedicated libertarian i.e. His choice (in all things) is his to make with no consideration for the impact on anyone else
What successful people such as he rarely ever experience is being told "No".
He'll be thoroughly used to getting what he wants, simply because that's his choice.
His unvaccinated condition probably inflates the chances he could convey this nasty, life threatening infection to bods more vulnerable than he.  The vulnerability of others doesn't resonate with him.  His lickspittles and hangers-on will likely have assured him that Australia's simplistic immigration rules could be gamed or circumvented, even if only by his eminence in tennis "they won't do without me"  He was right about Tennis Australia but not about the actual authorities.

His calm erudition and fluency in multiple languages are too easily confused with authority and wisdom.

By the time he has to consider arriving in London to play Wimbledon, our feckless self-serving liar in chief will likely have done away with all common sense and scrapped Covid vaccination status, testing, quarantine, for international arrivals.  Whether the LTA follow suit is up to them.
ND won't get a free ride from all the Wimbledon crowd.

France may not be as dogmatic as Aus but it'll be a more reasoned prospect than here.

If he can do without the prize money and ranking points that's up to him, the tournaments will go on with or without him.

Amol Rajan didn't give him a roasting, didn't berate or hector him but what purpose would that have served?

Anyone who listened to what ND said, and didn't say, can make up their own mind.
I think he's painted himself into a corner.
No he doesn't have to publicise his vaccination status but his admission to tournaments will reveal it, won't it?  Nobody's confused by that surely?
The fact that so many of the attendees at his own shindig/tournament back in 2020 caught covid, completely deflated his earlier bluster about his vegan fed physical regime would protect him from infection.   His ego and entourage continue to prevent any appreciation of
the global scientific experience of the last year or more.

I won't miss him at Wimbledon.