Covid passports too divisive Law can only protect so far

I believe there are many reasons why “vaccine passports” that restrict people’s rights and freedoms based on their personal health decisions or vaccine status would be unacceptable. The decision to have or refuse the vaccine should be a free and informed choice.

Vaccine passports would be divisive and unfair not only to those who choose not to have the vaccine but also to those who cannot have it for health reasons. This includes people with allergies and people who have had bad reactions to previous vaccines. We should always be able to choose the treatments we trust and our medical history should remain confidential. We should not consent to medical apartheid. Ann Kendall

I watched the television program ‘Women: How safe are we’ thinking I would be given some factual information.

Nowhere did they actually try to address HOW safe women are. According to the Office for National Statistics to the year ending March 2019, there were 671 murders: 429 men (64%), 241 women (36%).

As this program was initiated by a women getting killed walking home, the nearest stat in the ONS is street/path/ alleyway killings: 129 men (30%), 14 women (6%). Which means men are nine times more likely to be killed walking home than women. The program was all about how women feel. About their perceptions of safety. It then degenerated into a general rant about men not understanding women’s fears, boys have to be re-educated, and men need more laws to control their behaviour.

The law does not and cannot protect people. It can only punish people for breaking the law after the event.

Those who want new laws are grossly out of step with the reality of life in the UK. How can you even phrase a law that depends on how scared a person is in a particular situation?

It is impossible to protect people from the vicissitudes of life.

You just have to be an adult. Alan Hardie-Storey