- “Four million Brits invited to schedule their winter Covid jab” – People over the age of 75, care home residents, NHS staff and people who are housebound are among those prioritised to receive the vaccination, which has been updated to fight Omicron, the Mail reports.
- “Pharmacists ‘worried’ about insufficient supply of Covid vaccine boosters” – The Telegraph reports that ahead of the national rollout, the Association of Independent Multiple Pharmacies says chemists do not have enough jabs to meet demand.
- “The Terrifying Vacuity of Klaus Schwab” – The inimitable Eugyppius with a review of COVID-19: The Great Reset, “one of the dumbest, most tedious and utterly pointless books ever written”.
- “Impacts of the Statewide COVID-19 Lockdown Interventions on Excess Mortality, Unemployment, and Employment Growth” – A new study in the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine compares U.S. states on excess mortality and Covid restrictions and finds “no statistical relationship between excess mortality and openness scores, while there were strong relationships with employment measures”.
- “Why Is Covid Worse for Some People Than Others?” – SciTechDaily reports on a new study that finds genes play a role in why some people suffer more from COVID-19 than others.
- “Why it’s still worth asking questions on lockdown” – The Spectator‘s Fraser Nelson defends his magazine’s continued criticism of the lockdown mythos.
- “Putin’s closure of Nord Stream 1 has left Britain exposed” – Ross Clark in the Spectator says that Western sanctions have harmed Russia, but they are also incredibly costly and amount to a form of mutually assured destruction.
- “Macron is blaming Putin for his own net zero folly” – Gavin Mortimer in the Spectator approvingly quotes French newspaper Le Figaro that “the reality is that, for the past 15 years, we have voluntarily sacrificed part of our nuclear power, which ensured our energy sovereignty, in order to make little political arrangements with the ecologists”.
- “Who’s really threatening American democracy?” – Tom Slater in Spiked says Joe Biden has helped usher in a terrifying new era of ‘respectable’ authoritarianism.
- “Chile set to reject ‘woke’ new constitution” – Polls show that nearly half the electorate will vote against the new proposed constitution – a radical Left wing creation – with just a third expected to vote in favour, the Telegraph reports.
- “Sir Tom Devine criticises ‘naming and shaming’ over slavery” – Scotland’s best-known historian has criticised an official report on Edinburgh’s slavery legacy for “naming and shaming” famous people from the past when in reality the whole of society was embroiled in the trade and its consequences, the Times reports.
- “RFU hit by legal action over transgender women ban” – The Telegraph reports that the governing body says it will “robustly defend” its case after trans player Julie Curtiss issued it with a pre-action protocol letter.
- “U.S. bakery triumphs in long-running court battle with ‘woke’ university” – Gibson’s was falsely accused of racial profiling by senior university staff after a shoplifting incident in what is widely seen as an example of woke overreach by a university, the Telegraph reports.
If you have any tips for inclusion in the round-up, email us here.
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.
Thursday Morning Grove End & A30 London Rd, Bagshot
Stop Starmer’s War on Farmers … and Cars
Jesus… Americans are mad enough to elect her as president, aren’t they? Jesus…
Yes, I believe they are. Imagine being so frightened of Trump that you vote yourself to hell as the preferred alternative.
86% of those who voted in the last U.K. general election supported woke socialist parties
Yup, we are completely surrounded.
Whut? No. Surely. I mean, if you read their manifestos… Ah.
The Tory manifesto would have been better than the others at hiding their woke socialist beliefs, but they had been in government for 14 years and I looked at what they actually did, not what they said.
They could promise anything. They knew they would lose and never need to keep their promises.
They talked a good fight on immigration for years and did very little.
Stopping immigration is not part of the globalist agenda in any way.
We’re not mad enough to believe that it matters for whom we vote. Bibi wants Trump, so Trump it’ll be.
“The obese are crippling the NHS. It’s time to make them pay”
OMG, another sanctimonious, self righteous, know it all, pontificating about things of which they have no knowledge. What is it that makes them think that banning things is the solution to everything. Cream horns indeed…
It’s part of the same collectivism that brought as covid fascism.
Although… I don’t entirely disagree with this stance, I do wonder where those who promote it might eventually stop? There isn’t much that we do which affects our health, that we don’t do ‘voluntarily’… presumably, the limit would be the point at which it affected them?
“Labour membership sinks… under Starmer” story in the T: Until 2020, I used to be a member, and dropped out on account of their attitude to the panic. In effect, there was no real opposition. I wonder if other parties have the same problem, particularly the Tories? Of course, if that was the underlying cause of the balance sheet looking a bit unhealthy, they will never admit it openly.
The “panic” was induced by governments, the media and various supranational organisations, all in cahoots of various kinds.
No room for child rapists, but room for anyone ‘far-right’ who shouts at a dog. Anyone that still believes we live in a democracy whose problems can be fixed with elections, polite protest or signing petitions, needs to be locked up… unfortunately all the dissidents have filled all the cells.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/books/what-to-read/book-banning-intolerant-society/
Now I’m not for banning books nor a prude but sexualising young children, of any stripe, is not ok. He witters on about banning Ulysses and Lady Chatterley’s Lover, years ago without acknowledging the banning of books of the LGB alphabet were found to be:
“Books about LGBTQ+ topics or gender theory received the most challenges, often because the complainant perceived them as “advocating child harming procedures”
…
”Of the 16 books removed from public libraries, eight were due to complaints regarding racist or divisive” language, three for “inappropriate” sexual or violent content, three for concerns about potentially damaging health advice and two for outdated information.”
https://freespeechunion.org/the-books-banned-from-libraries-after-one-complaint/
He continues: “It’s telling that one of the few authors who refused to defend Lady Chatterley during the 1960 trial at the Old Bailey was Enid Blyton, an author whose work now often looks mean-spirited and bigoted.”
and are now among those being altered now by ’sensitive readers’, which doesn’t seem to bother the writer as he doesn’t object to that.
I love books, I love and treasure the written word so instead of banning, how about the old ‘top shelf’ of certain books, let parents or older children decide if they want to see them, and stop ‘sensitive readers’.
A society that functions normally is built on a common set of moral values which implicitly polices deviant or improper behaviour. Laws may be written down, but they are merely a reflection of cultural beliefs, so the words have little meaning other than to underline what is expected of an individual living within that society. In that society a book sexualising children would never get written, let alone published for mass consumption.
When a societies common set of morals become fractured, laws may be easily subverted as powerful players (e.g. the state or judiciary) can choose a different interpretation of the words of law. Citizens within the broken society are free to express deviant thoughts with little to no consequence. Banning books to fix societal ills is as clear a sign as is possible that the common moral compass of a society has collapsed. But no amount of banning, no amount of legal words, will fix the problem.
This is what happens when a common moral rulebook that people have followed for millennia (the Bible) gets mocked and ridiculed, and is gleefully binned with the full force of the state behind the demise. Whether or not you believe in God (and I’m more than a little sceptical) it seems indisputable that it’s teachings laid the common framework that bound us together.
I agree with much of your comment. Whilst not a believer I do feel the values of the Bible tremendously important to any functioning society and am sad at its demise in today’s culture. Do we have (or have ever had) a common set of values though? Yes we have a facade of common values but those values have been successfully openly traduced nowadays by all and sundry. The media, the politicians, the judiciary and most egregiously by the church. There have always been what was classed as ‘smutty’ books, it is the publication for mass consumption that is now the problem and the fact that anything goes on the internet. All I personally can do is try to instil moral behaviour in my immediate family and hope that continues down the line as a safeguard against the bombardment of what I personally believe is abhorrent.
This is a tricky one for me.
As a libertarian jihadist, my instinct is that nothing should be banned – adults can choose, and adults should be supervising their kids choices. In practice, it gets awkward if you want to let your kids loose in the local library or bookshop and not micro manage what they are reading. It also gets awkward with books in schools – you should be free to choose a school that aligns with your values, but you may not find one and again you can’t micro manage what your kids are doing in school.
As Free Lemming points out below, without shared values it breaks down and laws that take the place of shared values get abused by those with power.
That said, your kids will come across all sorts of ideas you find repellent, and you just have to deal with it somehow.
“Jermaine Jenas maintains there are ‘two sides to every story”
Funny that, it’s word for word what big ears said!
“Farrow & Ball told to make names like ‘Dead Salmon’ ‘vegan-friendly’”
“Last white rhino grey”
“Belly up whale blue”
“Polar bear inwards pink”
“Ak47 tusk ivory”
“Gutted cheater yellow”
“Vampire bat blood red”
“Clubbed seal pup puce”
“Lustrous rotting carcass Black”
Can you suggest any?
Take a look at the paints offered by wargaming suppliers. Citadel has for example Dreadful Visage, Bad Moon Yellow, Gutrippa Flesh and Garaghaks Sewer.
There would be an outcry amaongst wargamers if there was any suggestion of wokery entering their hobby.
“Jeremy Clarkson’s new pub forces council to cut speed limit” – Jeremy Clarkson’s new pub is set to be so popular that the council is cutting speed limits and exploring other traffic-calming measures”
At any cost, in order to stop it from being successful….Perish the thought!
“Rep. Waltz suggests Crooks didn’t act alone in assassination attempt”
So there were how many shooters on that roof?
How many does it take to pull a trigger?
Hairy balz is a tw@¥!
Not sure what you are saying here, Dinger. Of course Crooks wasn’t a lone gunman acting alone, any more than Lee Harvey Oswald was 62 years ago.
Why?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/08/22/lib-dems-are-a-national-embarrassment/
Our politicians are a disgrace but the Lib Dims take the Next Tuesday biscuit.
https://popularrationalism.substack.com/p/scientists-silencing-science-the
BS.
The C1984 was re-branded ‘flu and nothing more. The lab-leak nonsense was gaslighting intended to bolster the story. Its about time this crap bit the dust.
If anything undermines $cience and public health it is garbage such as this.
Dr Mike Yeadon called this out long ago.
Agreed HP, but what do you make of Mike Yeadon’s latest comments on Ivermectin?
To be honest Michael I am very confused with Mike Yeadon’s comments re Ivermectin. All the reporting I have seen has concluded that Ivermectin is extremely safe and very effective. There is little, if anything that Mike Yeadon has got wrong since the shit show started so I find myself on the fence re his position on Ivermectin. Wait and see I think.
“Taxman pockets record £3 billion from NHS backlog”
Surely taxpayers cannot be taxed twice for the same thing???
Taxed for the NHS even if they don’t use it, and then taxed again for private healthcare???