I was listening to a discussion the other day. A radio guest was questioning why certain things were not being said in relation to the media coverage of the Queen’s death. The issues were in no way disrespectful and I considered them to be sensible and pragmatic but the presenter cut her short and politely reminded her that “there may be a time and place for a discussion of that nature but now is certainly not the time and I feel that will be the case for some time to come”. This seems to be happening an awful lot right now. My first reaction was to feel the following:
- a sense that the media are controlling a narrative in a similar way to what we have experienced with Covid, lockdowns and vaccinations;
- a strong empathy with that member of the public; a strong belief that the Queen herself would not have wanted the cancelling of important health services, funerals, sporting and other entertainment events, high street trade and measures that would assist our government-trashed economy; and neither would she have been comfortable with debate around such issues being stifled;
- when will there ever be a time for this discussion and, as appears to be happening with regards to Covid, will that time of openness and debate, when it finally arrives, be well past its sell-by date?
I feel this way as I attempt to imagine what the Queen, through all her kindness and consideration and devotion to a lifetime of selfless service to the public, would have wanted.
The amount of attention given to the current main news story is understandable and if some feel it is too much (including myself at times) they can switch off. But the whole situation can be difficult or even painful for some. I find myself again in a similar situation to the early phase of Covid where I talk to my friends, many of whom had (and now have) similar views but are unable to share them with the wider public through fear of being accused of disloyalty, selfishness or even heresy – such is the overwhelming control of the media narrative. Notice also that I have not, on this occasion, written ‘mainstream media narrative’ as is usual in my articles. The current narrative seems all-pervasive and the silencing of the poor woman I witnessed on the radio now seems more in keeping with what one would expect in a repressive, autocratic regime.
These days media companies may thrive by being paid by large organisations, either directly or through advertising, with the aim of influencing the consumer’s views to benefit their own purposes and multi-million pound businesses. When it comes to current affairs and news, shouldn’t there be a standard that both broadcasters and their readership can refer to and a code of practice incorporating a declaration of interests to protect the public?
If news is allowed to be dominated by large organisations or factors that determine their revenue it becomes more difficult for us to accurately assess our circumstances and more important that we have mechanisms to safeguard against this. We run the risk of being misinformed, disinformed or being nudged into decisions that might profoundly affect our future. Some will be more adversely affected than others. So whilst the sceptics and ‘critical thinkers’ among us are more likely to digest things with a large pinch of salt, the less sceptical and more trusting (regardless of educational attainment) are more vulnerable. This leads to a ‘false democracy’, since the public may end up accepting, consenting to and voting for things that turn out to be false.
Justice has to be seen to be done. Below, I propose a system to keep potential bias in check and rule out a potential excuse that, the BBC for example, devotes more airtime to one side of an argument or conceals information (as with the BBC’s ‘Unvaccinated‘) simply because it says that is what the public is most interested in.
So whilst the news relating to our late Queen, who lived for 96 years, has earned so much media coverage, wouldn’t she also have wanted a proportionate amount of professional journalistic time and analysis devoted to the death of around 96 babies (many of whom failed to survive for more than 96 days) in the Shrewsbury Maternity Scandal?
Instead of having BBC News and Ofcom in its present form, we should replace both with a system described below to give us a national broadcaster that we can trust for current affairs reports.
Ideally, before we reached that stage we would have to ensure that children are educated in a similar way to that described in one of my previous articles, so that their critical thinking skills and scepticism would be primed for their protection. That would provide the groundwork for a ‘People’s News Channel’. The proposal in brief:
- all news topics to be vigorously debated by experts with opposing views;
- the time given to and the quality of expertise provided by each participant would be reasonably matched;
- the time allotted to each news topic would be proportionate to the significance posed to the health and general wellbeing of society.
History has taught us that information once perceived and presented as fact often turns out to be false or less clear-cut. So those experts opposing the majority view should have as much say even if they represent a clear minority. The system can be supported because there will always be enough people who demand the truth and open free speech.
The BBC received a record 500,000 complaints over ‘perceived bias’ last year, so what I’m looking for is a reformed BBC News channel (or at least a taxpayer funded news channel) that is designed on an ethical, politically-neutral debating platform that simply puts out high quality opposing views so that the public can make up their own minds on important matters which:
- may determine their futures and;
- act as a reference for other media outlets to perhaps take sides (with one view or another or somewhere in the middle) and stimulate further (and possibly deeper) interest, debate and interaction with the public.
Ofcom should become redundant in its current form. The Communication Act 2003 specifies the six things Ofcom must do to fulfil its duty. It is clear to me that it is failing in:
- the third on that list: “High quality and wide appeal” – not for the many sceptics;
- the fifth on the list: “protection from offensive and harmful material” – is caution from medical experts about lockdowns, vaccine safety and efficacy harmful and offensive? Why should Ofcom decide when it can be responsibly and widely debated first?;
- last on the list: “provide adequate protection against unfairness” – is it fair to prevent bereaved relatives of vaccine victims or those suffering severe vaccine injuries from being able to have a voice and, again, why should Ofcom decide when the subject can be properly debated first?
Others might have something to say about how Ofcom fulfils its duty in relation to points 1, 2 and 4, but it is clear to me that we need a different type of regulator and BBC News channel that acts more democratically and is held more accountable. It is very telling and, quite frankly disgraceful, that Ofcom has apparently been trying to shut down Mark Steyn’s show on GB News.
A truly independent, corruption-free, taxpayer funded news channel could provide a trusted model and reference with which all other news outlets might be compared (and possibly shamed).
Some people may think that the idea of a sort of ‘paragon of news’ could not happen. But only if we sit back and do nothing is that true. I am no longer happy to write articles without offering up ideas. But my ideas or those belonging to any writer that has fought against the prevailing narrative of the last few years will forever fall on deaf ears as long as the public have been brainwashed into believing what the mainstream media have portrayed by their censoring of rigorous and fair debate. The evidence for the depth of harms resulting from Covid lockdowns, vaccination programmes and the Net Zero agenda is emerging now even in some of the mainstream media. It is possible to do something about it and we should demand an improvement to the quality of news.
Dr. Mark Shaw is a retired dentist.
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.
Political parties have had many years notice of widespread dissatisfaction about this. Not until a disrupter party gains momentum will the self designated elites change an arrangement which serves them very well indeed.
There is no need for a state broadcaster.
Private sector broadcasters can be policed by a system of petitions and juries.
Only once complaints have surmounted a very high bar should a jury be appointed to consider the matter.
In my view, petitions concerning any number of BBC programmes past and present would leap over such a bar with consummate ease.
No no no, only a state organ can protect the people from dangerous misinformation!
“In February 1616, the Inquisition assembled a committee of theologians, known as qualifiers, who delivered their unanimous report condemning heliocentrism as “foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture.”
Something we can agree on!
The best police and jury for private sector broadcasters is their audience surely, as is true for any private enterprise in the competitive free market. Give the consumer what he thinks he wants at a price he will pay and sufficient to make a profit, or go belly-up.
That is the problem with the BBC, NHS, and any State run public service, they can never go bankrupt, there is no risk to the jobs of people in them irrespective of the quality or quantity of their output.
That’s a non-sequitur. There’s certainly a risk to the jobs of people working for the BBC. For instance, someone openly stating that he thinks the public aspects of gay culture are as bizarre as subtly and not-so-subtly disgusting would certainly not be allowed to continue working for the BBC afterwards, despite that’s an entirely innocuous statement. For instance, stating the same about blue cheese, while certainly rubbing some people the wrong way, wouldn’t seriously raise any eyebrows.
Couldn’t agree more. My daughter said yesterday that the mainstream news narrative reminded her of ‘something else’ (!). The BBC informing us that ‘the nation’ does this, does that, feels this, feels that, and the massive social pressure for shops and businesses to close.
The nation is an inanimate object which cannot express emotion, only sentient beings can do that.
Grammar really does matter! My final year clinical supervisor was a real grammar pedant from whom I learned a lot & things / objects / abstract nouns do not, cannot & never will be able to emote.
I didn’t engage with the service at all. Despite my long history of singing sacred music.
The population is a collection of individuals with different, ideas, opinions, ambitions, outlooks, etc ‘the nation’, ‘society’ is not an aggregate of these to form a single animus or will.
Precisely! The nation is a concrete noun yet remains inanimate. Inanimate being the operative, despite comprising of individuals.
As a great lady once said, “there is no such thing as “society””.
Which is why a ‘State’ or ‘National’ broadcaster is a contradiction in terms.
I agree with your analysis. However, following your link to the G, it stated that it’s a bit old (in effect), and it also has a short sentence right at the bottom to the effect that it has corrected itself, a little bit.
A somewhat ironic source I came across the other day was the BBC World Service channel in the early hours, to do with problems related to “disinformation” and “misinformation”. The pot calling the kettle black, in effect.
In relation to yesterday’s media, I did watch the main funeral part broadcast from Westminster, but not much else after that. The most intelligent news-like half hour I watched was on Al Jazeera (216 on Freesat), with 3 participants, one in London, one in New Delhi, and the other in Sydney. The discussion was about what might happen next about the Commonwealth and so on. Speculation, no doubt, but I don’t there’s much of that elsewhere.
Minor mistake – 203 on Freesat for that one (216 is GBN).
TalkTV is getting particularly bad at this; anyone ringing in to ask for just a little less wall-to-wall Queen in the last couple of weeks was given very short shrift; even advised to switch off if they didn’t like it.
I’m a Royalist but even so crept back to Radio 4Xtra just for some relief from the monomania of the ‘independent’ stations. (Couldn’t face standard BBC – completely irredeemable…)
Agreed. The coverage on Monday for the funeral was IMO acceptable but the preceding 24/7 micro reporting was akin to COVID reporting. I personally think that the biggest problem we need to solve first is the code the mainstream media is following needs a review/reigning in. It fuels social media storms and isn’t helpful in the long run.
Hear hear. From the moment I heard there was “concern” about Her Majesty’s health (and by then, she was probably already dead, and only the royal family had been informed), I was thinking: this feels very much like lockdown. The number of similarities is alarming: relying on herd mentality. “Doing the right thing”. Phrases such as “government guidance”, “you are recommended to”. Enforced closures; not on pain of prosecution, but on pain of being “cancelled” and ridiculed by your fellow man, which the government now knows works well. Competitive virtue signalling everywhere, followed by U-turns (Center Parcs in particular).
For myself, I refused to watch the funeral, just as I refused to watch the Covid briefings; I think if we are not careful, it is only a matter of time before such things are broadcast onto our telescreens, in our homes, whether we want it or not. I made a point of spending cash in a local shop which had dared to open yesterday.
But there were a number of extraordinary paradoxes: no health warnings about The Queue at all (at least I didn’t see any, but then I didn’t queue): standing still for hours, among possible Covid superspreaders, possibly all through the night. Were they not worried about mourners being ill, and burdening the NHS? Nobody “flocked” to see the coffiin, a word which was thrown about with reckless abandon two years ago. And, guess what was confiscated from those in the queue? Hand sanitiser. Yes, really: I heard it from somebody who queued. The irony is incredible, after state-sponsored slogans of “hands face space”, “how to wash your hands”.
And hardly any mask wearing inside or outside the chapel or abbey. Lots of indoor singing, walking around and prolonged close contact with people from all over the place. Did President Biden wear a mask for instance? Am I unfair?
No, and the point is well made. Maybe the thing to do is to keep an eye on the “health records” over the next few weeks. If I was a betting man, I’d bet on there being no noticeable increase in infections on account of it all – might even be the other way round. Strong evidence that the whole lot was a conn, in recent times.
A very good article; thanks.
The BBC is a huge problem – almost insurmountable. Defunding it/privatising it is probably not enough as it has a head start that will take decades to eradicate. It would be best to remove it completely.
I don’t think the state should control or fund broadcasting. Whatever checks and balances you put in place will almost certainly be abused. I think the least bad solution is adversarial, like newspapers used to be and like US broadcasting is.
All broadcasters are ultimately funded by the big three banks who control the narrative.
Unless one is independently wealthy, hasn’t indulged in anything linked to Epstein et al & isn’t worried about being assassinated, then there will not be a truly independent broadcaster.
Well independently wealthy people also have their foibles. Murdoch-owned TV media (Fox in the US and Sky News in Aus) has been noticeably more questioning of lockdowns, but that’s as much luck as anything. I think you just have to hope that in a freeish market, providers will emerge catering for a variety of worldviews, though of course if the private corporate world has been captured by globalist lefties then you’re kind of stuffed, which in fact we are it seems to me.
Agreed. Murdoch’s skeletons in his cupboard will have ensured his compliance with the narrative, irrespective of personal wealth.
It all comes back to greed, corruption & the desire to control.
No there is no hope for BBC impartiality (as they are convinced they know the truth about a number of issues) and they believe are obliged to “educate” their viewers. Content on COVID and its management, climate change, Terf ideology and the Royal Family all fall into this category. On some issues, they might be correct but not on all of them.
I recommend reading and supporting “The Daily Skeptic”, “Unherd” and content on “Substack”. Again contributors are not always correct, but it is likely to be free of censorship.
Consider ending your BBC subscription and using the money to support these outlets. It’s legal if you can avoid watching live broadcasts (from any provider on any device) and iplayer. You may think it is outrageous that you must pay the BBC to watch SKY or BT live broadcasts. If so contact your MP.
I have to say that after a couple of days I actively avoided the wall to wall “deathfest” provided by the media.Just to be clear I am not anti monarchy ,I have lived all my life under QE2 and thought she did a good job of it.I infact raised a glass with a friend the day she passed.
Like the commentator I was overwhelmed with the one sided view and hours of coverage .
Yesterday I listened to a bit of the service but did not watch it.
I could not stomach the thought .
Shutting down the whole country was very Eastern bloc .I am surprised the stasi were not checking up on tears and handwringing per person..
The worst thing for me was that even GB news succumbed and joined in .Thats made me think ..
I was much more affected and engaged by the whole day than I had expected. Perhaps that is the whole idea, in order to make us think positively about the monarchy for the long term. Back in reality, I’m wondering what real issues have been eclipsed from our minds over the last two weeks. Covid, vaccines, climate, energy and the Ukraine are the obvious candidates. It is certainly a “good month for burying bad news”, as Jo Moore nearly said.
And it ain’t over yet. A couple of days with Parliament open, yes (including a Kwasi budget on Friday), but then a couple of weeks of political conferences – Tory then Labour – which will soak up the MSM output for a while.
‘A truly independent, corruption-free, taxpayer funded news channel could provide a trusted model…’
Isn’t that model BBC News? Isn’t the justification for the ‘unique way the BBC is funded’, ie hypothecated tax, that it allows the BBC to be independent, corruption-free and free of outside influence and contraints?
There is reason why there never can be a truly independent, corruption-free, taxpayer funded news channel.
First: anything that is taxpayer funded inevitably serves political interests – see NHS. Politics = bribery & corruption. Second: nobody on Planet Earth is bias free nor independent, we are all subject to influence by others, events, personal experience and tastes.
The problem is not the BBC’s bias, but the fact we are obliged to pay for it whether we agree or not.
Get rid of Ofcom – which is just a tool of censorship. It is interesting from among so many complaints which ones get upheld. For sure if you are promoting climate change, equality, ‘various Rights’, your complaint against the truth being told to challenge your lies will be upheld.
So let the free market decide. In the US, FoxNews by far outstrips rivals with viewing audience. Clearly its output – which certainly is biased, is the ‘bias of choice’ for a very large majority. The bias of the other News channels clearly isn’t, which is why they have hæmorrhaged audiences.
I think people misunderstand mass media.
It’s main purpose isn’t to inform. It’s to entertain.
Especially news. People watch news to be engaged, outraged and titelated.
A lot of the problems in our society stem from the confusion that the process of being entertained with current affairs amounts to be being informed.
Good point.
I would put this the other way round: Mass media prefer to appear entertaining in order to transport the political messages mere information couldn’t convey effectively, ie, the BBC tries to be entertaining instead of informative in order to hide the fact that it’s really in the business of distributing propaganda.
Exactly, but they are not hiding it well from me. I look at the BBC sports news pages and it’s full of stuff about whatever they are pushing – racism in sport, women’s sport, gay sport, trans sport etc.
I think that may be largely true of the BBC.
However, I don’t think news channels around the world and smaller media in the UK have been carrying royal funeral porn ad nauseum under instructions from the Gates Foundation, or the WEF or the UK deep state.
They’ve done so because there has been an insatiable appetite for QEII and British monarchy stories and media exists first and foremost to capture people’s attention.
As I see it, peddlers of propaganda take a free ride on the media attention much in the same way as companies piggyback on the popularity of Premier League Football to sell their stuff.
But I would agree that the BBC is probably the exception in that the control and indoctrination of the public were part of its foundational objectives and certainly its core mission now.
Stewart, I agree. But suggest that the promotion of “being entertained with current affairs ” by the BBC “amounts to being” MISinformed.
If I see part of their output, perhaps shown in a shop, I am inclined to check on my phone if they broadcast the time of day, never mind anything “controversial”.
Being a grumpy old man, I think that their back catalogue should be siezed and entrusted to (perhaps) the British Library, or preferably to an organisation uninfected by woke.
The BBC should then be blown up and the ruins salted.
Kind people would sack the staff before that last process.
Keywords: Pharmocracy, blunder, model, cover-up
This was painfully reminiscent of a bizarre episode I
passed through a few decades back as a teacher. After some preliminary strange harassment by a local authority, I was accused of organising a Satanic Ritual Abuse circle in my region. The matter initially went towards a criminal trial, but quickly collapsed for lack of evidence against me of any specific offence, and because of the emergence of a medical (psychiatric) blunder in which somebody’s paranoid delusions and false memory (possibly induced by medication) were mis-interpreted as accurate recollection. I was, seemingly, exonerated. However, the matter continued in the civil courts, when a case was made by a state sector protection authority and by my professional standards body that, according to psychiatric and psychological models authorised by the gold-standard NSPCC, I was at “risk of organising an SRA circle” and it was therefore necessary for me to be “quarantined” and my class to be “vaccinated” against my “infection”. This case lasted for years and involved several “experts” arguing in court about this supposedly novel and unprecedented mental “virus” and what its “symptoms” were. As the case unfolded I became increasingly aware that there were signs of mass hysteria in my opponents, and that the experts who initially supported my case were variously ignored, not allowed to testify, bullied or deceived themselves and each other. One of those on my side even changed sides, and claimed that he now realised that a parody document that I had authored and with which he was was supplied during the trial indicated that my transubstantiation-scepticism supported my opponents’ thesis that I was a dangerous, infectious Satanist, rather mere presenting an evidence-based defence. The case ended in an expensive fudge by a judge more concerned in protecting institutions’ images than finding where the truth lay. All the experts continued, enriched, in their professions and I was cancelled and exiled into teaching oblivion, where I first met climate sceptics in real life. I have even had ill-informed police visits since warning me against discussing my case or communicating with my detractors!
All official inquiries obfuscated the issue, or used words that portrayed the above as standard practice, and that any other decision would not be “in the public interest”. Only investigative journalists had the motivation and diligence to expose comparable scandals, which, as I ultimately found out, affected far more people than just me, in the same way.
[OK, hands up, in order to highlight the comparison, I’ve adjusted some of the words above from those originally used!]
My take-away from all this is that the UK excels in the cover-up. Indeed, it is how the system defends itself. It is easy for professionals, especially psychiatrists and GPs employed by the state, to make a blunder, and I cut them some slack. However, when the evidence comes to light that exposes the blunder, they are extraordinarily effective of organising a cover-up and a fake narrative to hide both the blunder and even the cover-up itself. The judicial system does not help unless you have money.
I suspect the current Covid and Climate scandals are rooted in the same mix of expert worship, elite authoritarianism and mindless compliance by the impoverished populace that I met long ago. We may think we live in a benign hereditary monarchy, which may be true in the long term, but it doesn’t stop ephemeral governments (even a series of them of slightly different hue) from being ruthlessly or stupidly authoritarian. They will continue to extend their global power by collusion with rich allies such as the pharmaceutical companies, therapists, energy controllers, pension fund contollers, the media and global banks. Perhaps the recent funeral will be exploited to cover up the Covid scandal by temporarily diverting attention? In the long term, God Save Us From The King.
Therapists, the rapists, anyone?
NB: I had a couple of less-than-enjoyable encounters with this profession in the past.
Bit of a trip down memory-lane, this. Not that I’ve experienced this personally, but I clearly recall a couple of decades ago a series of moral panics about ritual satanic abuse; a council estate close to where I used to live seemed to have constant recourse to Deliverance ministry/exorcists – almost on a weekly basis. I’m not sure why these things go in cycles but I have sympathy for anyone wrongly accused.
My constant qualm was about what was going on whilst our attention was being directed towards the lead-up to the Queen’s funeral and the Royal family circus.
Yes on the whole the moral panics were without any foundation, and seem to an example of mass hysteria, confirmation bias and delusional fantasists. Some similar may have happened with the Climate and especially Covid scares. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_satanic_ritual_abuse_allegations
Intuitively, I like the idea. On its own, private is a synonym for corrupt and the only effective remedy against that is a competitive market. I don’t believe a competitive market for accurate information can ever exist.
You’re probably right but who would police impartiality?
That’s a problem which can’t really be reliably solved. A start could be demanding objectivity and not impartiality and that facts are rigorously distinguished from opinions about them. And – of course – anything that’s inherently political, like any quest to transform society in the name of whatever good cause, can only ever be a topic and not an agenda. Ie, reporting about so-called anti-racism as political phenomenon of some importance would be ok. But never having an anti-racist program according to the current definition of anti-racism.
This is – of course – a bit pie-in-the-sky thinking as it would amount to abolishing post-modernism and critical theory in this area and people who really believe in both wouldn’t (and perhaps even couldn’t) do that.
I think the best one could hope for was to employ equal numbers of right and left wing people and make sure they were equally represented among the leadership, and let them fight it out with equal access to presenters and shows of opposing views. Some kind of test could be devised, though people could game it and then backslide once employed. I don’t know how you’d tell it was working – a lot of people have noticed how partial the BBC is, but a lot of people haven’t.
Political systems aren’t necessarily binary and two opposing parties each spinning something in their preferred way is just twice the amount of spin. This might everybody give an equal opportunity to ensnare the audience but wouldn’t empower it to come to its own conclusions. That’s why I wrote about objectivity instead of impartiality and about distinguishing facts from opinions about them. The main practical problem with such a service would be How can politics be kept completely out of it? Or the best practically possible approximation of that.
For the German system, where everything is organized alongside party lines, I once suggested that someone working for a public broadcaster must not be member of any party and must not become a party member while he’s still employed in this way. This had a chance of working in Germany where the whole state is basically a big party-based free-for-all but probably less so in the UK.
I think objectivity in a news and current affairs provider is pretty much impossible. And membership of political parties can easily be gamed and isn’t really relevant. The BBC seems to be full of lefties, or at least enough lefties in senior management that anyone who isn’t a lefty doesn’t want to speak up too loudly. Just redressing that would help a lot, and even that won’t happen.
That’s relevant in Germany because people are basically recruited based on their party afiliations and the public broadcasters are subject to the control by councils whose members are picked (proportionally) from the established political parties and other groups of society, eg, the churches, these parties consider particularly important. I already wrote that this idea wouldn’t work for something that’s not very similar to the German party oligarchy.
As to objectivity is impossible, that’s slogan the wokesters also very much like because, they, too, don’t want their spinning of stories hampered by it. As I already wrote: Twice the amount of spin doesn’t get anyone one millimeter closer to the truth. In practice, objectivity won’t always be achievable due to human fallibility alone. But it’s what people should seek to achieve as good as they can.
The reality is that the ease with which the public are nudged keeps the Elites in check. As a lesson to King Charles I am sure the One Brow of Woe narrative will have been fully understood. If you can nudge one way you can just as easily nudge the other.
Is be interested to see what the questions were that got the ‘not the time or the place’ treatment. The author seems to have drawn a lot from it and linked it to other topics which seem somewhat unconnected. What were the mysterious points..?
…and the predictable black and white checker board of Freemasonary on prominant display…
We had not interest in the funeral. In 1952 the was hardly any television and it is hard to believe that the death and funeral of George VI would have had this much coverage.
It has been like a funeral for the death of Britain, with a manufactured crises supported by the entire political class, the media and the Royal Family.
We keep going with our protests before the sheep get eaten by wolves.
Yellow Boards By The Road
There are wolves and sheep. We are the sheep dogs.
Thursday 22nd September 11am to 12pm
Yellow Boards
Junction A30 London Rd &
A325 Portsmouth Road
Camberley GU15 3UZ
Friday 23rd September 11am to 12pm
Yellow Boards
Junction Long Hill Road, New Forest Ride &
A329 London Rd (near Mercedes Benz)
Bracknell RG12 9FR
Stand in the Park Sundays 10.30am to 11.30am – make friends & keep sane
Wokingham
Howard Palmer Gardens Sturges Rd RG40 2HD
Bracknell
South Hill Park, Rear Lawn, RG12 7PA
Telegram http://t.me/astandintheparkbracknell
I see the poor chap Mo Khan who stormed Her Maj,s coffin is deemed nuts & so bailed into a mental facility until the dust settles ! The poor lambs defence is that he couldn’t believe she was dead & wanted to check ! Amazing that our Queen is above his probable belief of his god !..
As a die hard sceptic – the Queen’s funeral was a turning point in my opinion.
Hundreds of thousands of people turned out to pay their respects over the 10 days leading up to the funeral, and it was like the biggest ever game of ‘Where’s Wally’ trying to spot anyone masked.
The King and his heir, along with other royals spent hours over the course of that time meeting thousands of the great unwashed across the kingdom. Shaking hands, getting pawed, and even the odd kiss from the public.
Then on Monday, heads of state from across the world turned up, most by bus, to pay their respects at the funeral.
All unmasked.
Bit difficult after this week to go back and demand your people social distance and wear masks.
It’s over.
I’m an avid watcher of GBNews but noticed that their scene accessibility seemed to consist of a cameraman hanging upside down from a Premier Inn room. Had BBC on at times but in mute. Annoyed to see box ticking Baroness Scotland taking the1st reading. Wasn’t she in hot water for employing an illegal housemaid?
A key question that used to be asked when someone died, even when they were very old, is what did they die of? Whether it’s people who live in palaces or those who live in state-funded ‘care homes,’ there seems to be unhealthy lack of discussion on this point – could it be from fear of a link being drawn with COVID jabs and / or Midazolam?
I’m loathe to leap to the idea of a cover-up on cause of death, even though I have had direct experience of cover-up of state-sector agencies and know of many others. I have a small amount of direct experience of people dying over the course of months, some elderly. It’s not a straightforward matter. Although the immediate cause of death may be clear, the context is relevant, especially if it covers a multitude of progressive disorders. My mental image is that, towards the end, the body is juggling with various innate emergency processes, typically to preserve blood supply and energy supply, any one of which might ultimately be insufficient. In the case of cancer, is the death caused by the cancer or some haemorrhage, or by large quantities of pain relief medication and tranquillisers? Attributing the cause of death to one particular process not working is not really helpful. By extension, attributing to medication or even vaccination, or end-of-life care is unlikely to be helpful. If a candle flame is dying, it doesn’t help to know from which direction the final puff of air came.