In an interview on BBC Radio 4’s Today Programme, Dr. Jenny Harries, the Chief Executive of the U.K. Health Security Agency as well as the Head of the NHS Test and Trace scheme, said that the public must not attend social gatherings if they “don’t particularly need to” in order to restrict the transmission of the Omicron variant. Harries also called on all those eligible to receive booster jabs to go and get one and play their part in the fight against Covid. WalesOnline has the story.
Dr Jenny Harries, Chief Executive of the U.K. Health Security Agency (UKHSA), told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme that people could do their bit by reducing the number of social contacts they have.
She said that even if our “vaccines appear to be effective, but we find that the variant is more highly transmissible, having lowish grade infection, but in very large numbers of the population, (it) could still be a significant impact on our hospitals.
“And of course, our behaviours in winter and particularly around Christmas we tend to socialise more so I think all of those will need to be taken into account.”
Asked about working from home, she said: “We’ve seen that not everybody has gone back to work and I’d like to think of it more in a general way, which is if we all decrease our social contacts a little bit, actually that helps to keep the variant at bay.
So I think being careful, not socialising when we don’t particularly need to and particularly going and getting those booster jobs which, of course, people will now be able to have at a three-month interval from their primary course.
Worth reading in full.
Stop Press: As of today, the Government has brought back mask mandates to a wide array of public settings. A full list can be found here.
Stop Press 2: The crackdown on non-mask wearers on the London tube has begun. MailOnline has more.
Stop Press 3: The Government has rebuked Dr. Harries and distanced itself from her remarks. According to the Telegraph:
Boris Johnson insisted “we’re not going to change the overall guidance, we don’t think that’s necessary”, when he was asked about comments by Dr. Jenny Harries, the Chief Executive of the U.K. Health Security Agency, who had urged people to avoid socialising “unless you need to” in the run up to Christmas.
Downing Street also heavily distanced itself from her remarks, with the PM’s official spokesman stressing: “It’s not our advice to the public currently. You’ll know the measures we set out at the weekend. The UK HSA is an arms-length body of Government, and Jenny Harries provides advice to the Government, she is not a Government minister. The public should follow the guidance as set out by the Government and indeed the Prime Minister at the weekend.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Bang on with that last paragraph, Will. The hypocrisy is off the charts. I wonder how many pro-Hamassholes will be arrested for antisemitism at the weekend. Talk about perspective…Poor Bridgen was well and truly shafted wasn’t he? Anyway, my money’s on white police arresting/warning white patriots for waving their British flags and generally being patriotic. Especially if they’re all cut from the same cloth as that godawful ”Lesbian Nana” horror.
And the BBC obviously only apologized due to getting shed-loads of complaints so I’m glad ‘people power’ is still effective to some extent.
I’m glad to see this article, because I complained to the BBC about what they did just to see what they would say. They didn’t address specifically what I wrote and just sent a general reply to everyone, because clearly a lot of people complained.
This is what they wrote…..“Thank you for getting in touch about the House of Commons Adjournment Debate ‘Trends in Excess Deaths’, broadcast on BBC Parliament on 20 October.
To allow us to reply promptly to your concerns, and to ensure we use our licence fee resources as efficiently as possible, we are sending this response to everyone. We are sorry not to reply individually, but we hope this will address the points you have raised.
It is normal practice for BBC Parliament to show what are known as ‘story astons’ (or captions) which put debates into context for viewers. They are not comments, but editorial context written by journalists working on the live output.
The first aston made clear to viewers that Reclaim MP Andrew Bridgen had tabled the debate.
In accordance with the BBC’s guidelines on due impartiality, the remaining astons reflected (and are attributed to) the majority medical and scientific view that vaccines are safe.
We’re sorry if you remain unhappy. We have included your points in our overnight report. These reports are among the most widely read sources of feedback at the BBC, and help inform our future editorial judgements.
Thanks again for getting in touch.
Kind regards,
BBC Complaints Team”.
A complete batting away of the issue, but it seems they may have succumb to the volume of complaints.
I got that response initially, so I raised my complaint to the next level and then got the one reported in the article.
I’m still deciding whether I’ll pursue it to the next level. I suspect it would be batted away with a response that basically says “the BBC has admitted a mistake and apologised, so Eff Off” ….. but I still may do it.
It’s almost as if antisemitism had been a spectre of the past¹ until it was unearthed as weapon of choice against Jeremy Corbyn, presumably for want of real arguments. Since then, the powers-which-are have come to really like it and keep on antisemiting at every opportunity — after all, no one can think of a better way to argue about politics than claim the people on the other side are all Nazis or sort-of-Nazis.
¹ This is not strictly true. Governments of Israel have compiled yearly antisemites lists, usually including anyone who wasn’t a Jew and nevertheless critical of any of their policies, for a long time. But this used to be background noise until Corbyn.
While I suspect Corbyn, like many politicians, is more interested in strategy than harbouring any personal animosity towards Jewish people, he (like some others) has shown himself perfectly capable of hitching his wagon to a movement that is overtly, murderously anti-Semitic, presumably to bolster his support base. This mural has more than a few overtones of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion:
https://news.sky.com/story/senior-labour-figures-defend-jeremy-corbyn-over-anti-semitic-mural-row-11303966
It’s really useles to try to dump this story on me. Antisemitism was a political movement in Germany from the 19th to the early 20th century and that’s what the people controlling Israel are alluding to when they use the term. The large numbers of Arabs and muslims in general successive governments of Israel have – quite intentionally – alienated to the point where they’ve become their sworn enemies never had the power to do to Jews whatever they wanted to, hence, what they’d be doing if they ever had this power, something that’s exceedingly unlikely to happen, because Israel has unquestioning support of all greater powers of the world, is entirely unknown. In any case, this has no connection to what people have been trained to think of when they hear the term antisemitism namely Something like what the Nazis did!
This nazicalling in lieu of making an actual argument is childish and strongly suggests that the people who claim that the Holocaust was a singular event in human history don’t really believe this themselves. It can’t both be singular and ubiquitious.
Suggest you read the Quran if you think anti-semitism is a modern movement…
Anti-Zi*nism perhaps, but certainly not anti-sem*te. All people of the Levant are Semites.
Isn’t it nice to be an establishment corporation and to be able to get away with spurious attacks on people by simply issuing carefully worded apologies, months after the fact and that pretty much no one will read or report on (least of all, of course, the BBC itself).
Still continuing with the bias during their Kings Speech broadcast where the presenters condemned the Govt planned annual oil and gas licences.
You have to wonder about people still thinking you can power the 21st century by wind & solar power and that electric cars are feasible.
Nick was even more uninformed than Huw, and muddled the names of two officials, although one wore Army red & the other Navy blue.
The BBC have exclusive access to all, but I was finally able to move to GB News when they started their coverage and who manage better with far less resources.
Can anyone find this apology? Should it be publicly visible?
Well, it is actually buried away here:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/helpandfeedback/corrections_clarifications
They should be regulated to make their apologies for these gaffs more open.
“We accept there was a lack of consistency in the use of our captions and that the number posted during the speech was not proportionate, nor always relevant which created the incorrect impression that there was an editorial approach in relation to the views expressed. We apologise for this and are reviewing the way we use such captions during proceedings.”
Twaddle!
>M1 and Clive; I am in complete agreement; this is as gaslighting in extremis.
That weasel phrase is more revealing than the admission they got it wrong – BUT THAT WAS INTENTIONAL!!!!!!
The BBC’s output is ALWAYS approached from an “editorial” pov; ffs they are an alleged news outlet!!!!! – if that is NOT (ever) the case, their content would contain a warning that, eg, “the views expressed are those of the author [ who would/must be named] and not the BBC…….” followed by the usual self absolving disclaimer of liability. I do not ever recall this being employed other than very rarely?
It is a sign of the mounting pressure that some of the UFLW within the BBC can make a disastrous editorial decision ( and the streamline banner content must have been prepared well in advance ) but STILL feel so bombproof they can issue an apology which is nothing of the sort.
The BBC are under tremendous pressure – IMHO they have made a disastrous decision to make their complaints process the personal responsibility of Davie – he of the AWG/CC “settled science” self professed bias. He is a marketing man with not one shred of journalistic or editorial acumen or experience……..massive own goal ( a non BBC journalist/MSM editor – K.Mackenzie??? just joking – would have been a far better choice to out the fires out…)
At the risk of being off topic, I know I cannot as one individual tackle the whole BBC editorial apparatus. I could vent my spleen but where does that get me? Therefore I have waged a war against The BBC via their egregious and obvious editorial bias via BBC HYS topics – I have been blocked as a result, in the past (no warning, for at least 6 months) and my posts are now instantly monitored. A significant number have been removed but because I have chosen subjects and how I post very carefully a large number have been reinstated ( but not all ); reasons given for removal are illogical and demonstrably “wrong”. The BBC HYS censors are , now, so on the back foot ( which alludes to a degree of panic ); in the past they have allowed very extreme personal abuse by publishing posts against anyone who is pro Brexit, pro Tory ( I am NOT), anti AWGCC – tbf some were removed but by no means all and remained visible for hours after the fact. The BBC therefore tolerates abusive content when it is directed at subjects their bias is self evident but not when anyone of a different view counters that abuse with facts……BBS endemic editorial bias QED.
This is the guts of a recent “attack” by me on this very subject: I complained against my original post’s removal and very forcibly put the case against its removal – The BBC HYS censor moderators rolled over ( and this is the first tacit admission that their output is NOT editorially impartial ) – they have lost that argument for good with their last email to me which appears first – it was ostensibly comments on an article about CC and I stated that AWG/CC so called science is emphatically NOT settled and I mentioned the Oregon Declaration as “evidence” . I implore all to take The BBC biased editors on in this way if their time permits….the Bridgen apology is just one more example that they know they have lost the “impartiality” argument, “we” know it, they know we know it – so “keep going”?:
Dear BBC User,
Thank you for contacting the BBC.
In this instance, it appears your comment was removed in error so we have reinstated it.
Thank you for bringing this to our attention and please accept our apologies for any inconvenience caused.
Due to the volume of correspondence we receive, we are unable to discuss this matter further.
Regards,
BBC Moderation Services
http://www.bbc.co.uk/social/moderation
From: XXXXXX
Sent: 13 October 2023 17:46
To: Central Communities Team. <Central-communities-team@bbc.co.uk>
Subject: Moderation Comment form response
This is an automatically generated email. To reply to the sender, please create a new email to
The message is as follows:
Please choose a subject: Appeal against moderation decision
Your BBC ID display name: Homer from Springfield
Add reference number: e5aef7e3-e201-4e8e-b424-4b7885b9a581
Your comments: It is the case that the study of the earth’s climate ( and therefore weather systems ) is multi disciplinary , and in many cases little understood as has been stated by scientists many times the world over – eg the influence of the Sun in all its aspects. The BBC in recent days has made a massive play that it is editorially impartial [ viz. HAMAS atrocities] – anyone who has studied the BBC’s output knows this is abject rubbish as eloquently detailed by Robin Aitken ( ex BBC…he knows); the BBC has decided as far back as 2006 that the “science is settled” as far as AWG/CC is concerned , and has trotted out this editorially partial theme ever since despite thousands and thousands of scientists ( which The BBC is emphatically NOT and which employs biased reporters – Rowlatt for one – to constantly push AWG/CC ) signing the Oregon Declaration and others which The BBC habitually ignores. Similarly The BBC constantly pushes their “Anti-vaxxers” agenda in the face of decades long evidence documenting serious issues with certain ( many ) vaccines as well as the disaster of experimental mRNA gene editing drugs with a tsunami of evidence documenting fraudulent trials (Pfizer’s own documents attest to that), historically unique levels of adverse effects, premature death, massive levels of excess deaths that are caused by repeat doses ( I doubt The BBC will report on the massive meta analysis of southern hemisphere, official government data sourced, that – yet again – proves the scale of death and adverse harms caused by these highly dangerous drugs ) You cannot argue that The BBC has NOT remained editorially impartial as far as AWG/CC/SARS COV2 drugs – The BBC spouts their settled position constantly – and in so doing refutes their own mendacious statement that, as Mr Davie has tried to gaslight everybody, editorial impartiality remains a “raison d’etre” What utter self evident rubbish – “you ” have once again fallen into a trap which highlights the total lack of impartiality but illustrates the scale of corporate mendacity as far as your sanctimonius editorial position evident with the horror of the genocidal terrorist attacks in Israel by HAMAS – a legally proscribed terroist organisation. If you do not reinstate, I do not particularly care – I have proved my point multiple times – but this act of censorship in a week when the cowardice show by The BBC plumbs the deepest depths possible whilst trumpeting the one off switch of BBC “editorial impartiality” is the final straw – I will send this to Davie’s office and publish the exchange as I see fit.
“which created the incorrect impression that there was an editorial approach in relation to the views expressed”
Frustrating isn’t it – how those pesky word things just keep spontaneously appearing on the screen, by complete chance in exactly the right order to create an incorrect impression!
Happens all the time doesn’t it: I notice that petrol round our way is £1.59/litre, which I think is absurdly expensive; I must have been given the incorrect impression – you know, by those words and that!
“It’s almost as though the Tory leadership don’t actually care about antisemitism but just weaponising it against troublesome MPs.”
Parliamentarians, double standards – well blow me down…..