Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

No Vaccination Novak Djokovic

12930323435

Comments

  • 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
  • bobmunro said:

    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. 

  • It'll be interesting to see what happens in a year or so. The efficacy of the vaccine has been shown to reduce over time, so just because a person has been fully vaccinated, albeit their third jab was 6 months ago, it doesn't mean that their efficacy and therefore potential to contract and transmit the virus is the same as someone who had their final vaccine a month before they travel. So will there be a requirement for a further booster to travel to some of these countries like you have to have specific jabs like malaria before travelling to certain countries, or will they drop the requirement completely?
  • 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!
  • 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. 
    "I do what I like mate. Innit".
  • edited February 2022
    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. 
  • Sponsored links:


  • Valley11 said:
    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. 

    Terrifying? Really?
    Countries will always have different health regulations and stipulations for entry. It’s called ‘controlling your own borders’. 
    However, it might be a bit scary if every country was forced to have exactly the same rules, as you’re implicitly suggesting, but even that wouldn’t be ‘terrifying’. 
    Terrifying is one of the most over used words in this era, where certain elements describe the woke and anti fascists as terrifying. Or anything they don’t like, it seems. 
    Nazi Germany was terrifying. A plague of zombies would be terrifying, if zombies were real. Ryan Inniss bearing down on you to make a tackle would be terrifying to many. My missus can be terrifying if I forget her birthday or our anniversary. Which is today. Twenty years. Phew!
  • JamesSeed said:
    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?

  • 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. 
  • @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 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?

    Like the Oprah farce, not an interview as the poignant questions not asked
  • edited February 2022
    @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. 
    Agree about @GaryManilow as well. 👍 You have to wonder if his post might sway @Valley11’s opinion at all?
  • No Australian open for Noax and no French open either, with necessary tough rules to protect their citizens. But Wait- do i see that he will attend Wimbledon. because there is no vaccination rules, to enter the counrty .P M Scomo in Aussie Parliament today, in pre election mode, quoted how low the death rate is in Australia ,compared to Europe, He quoted a phenomenal 'jaw dropping' death rate in G B. So much for the 'let it rip' Tory policy. .He was being challenged in question time, on why so many old folk had died on his watch ,in old peoples homes ,which is a Federal responsibility .I can understand the U S having a ' dollar first' approach to sport. A country where guns and dollars, rule .But i am surprised Britain's have lost their moral compass too Then again i remember Margaret Thatcher
     On the news the Australian Grand Prix is back on again, here in Melbourne-Bring it on
  • JamesSeed said:
    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:
    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
  • Sponsored links:


  • 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. 
  • The issue is the BBC aren't impartial
    Well... ;)
  • JamesSeed said:
    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.
  • se9addick said:
    He didn’t really make a stand for his beliefs in Australia, he lied (seemingly multiple times) and got kicked out of the country. 
    Exactly. If he wanted to make a stand he’d either turn up with no vaccination paperwork just to get deported, or he would have refused to go. Turning up and trying to lie your way into the tournament isn’t taking a stand. 
  • 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
    The word highlighted is the past participle of a verb. It is not an adjective. 
  • Why would Djokovic not be able to play at Wimbledon?
  • edited February 2022
    The word highlighted is the past participle of a verb. It is not an adjective. 
    Language is evolving - its in the Oxford English Dictionary as an adjective btw
  • 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.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!