Arguing the conspiracy-or-emergence question with respect to pandemic policy is a little like weeding the garden. You are never quite done with it, and every few months you find you have something more to say.
In this instance, I must thank friend-of-the-blog Igor Chudov for providing the opportunity. He disagrees with my view that Covid policies owe less to creepy conspiratorial globalists, than they do to the unbounded stupidity of our leaders, boring institutional dynamics, and feedback effects. He’s explained why in an extensive post that everyone should read.
I don’t have an issue with most of the points Chudov raises, though I take a different view of their cumulative significance. I’d note only that the World Economic Forum article he leads with dates to April 3rd 2020, long after the entire Western elite had embraced mass containment. In general, the WEF merely echoes current trends and policy fashions, which makes its real-world influence an obscure matter. It’s additionally important that Event 201, held in October 2019, explicitly rejected lockdowns and mass travel restrictions in the event of a deadly pandemic, preferring instead minimal measures like advisories.
From its Call to Action (emphasis mine):
Travel and trade are essential to the global economy as well as to national and even local economies, and they should be maintained even in the face of a pandemic. Improved decision-making, coordination, and communications between the public and private sectors, relating to risk, travel advisories, import/export restrictions, and border measures will be needed. The fear and uncertainty experienced during past outbreaks, even those limited to a national or regional level, have sometimes led to unjustified border measures, the closure of customer-facing businesses, import bans, and the cancellation of airline flights and international shipping. A particularly fast-moving and lethal pandemic could therefore result in political decisions to slow or stop movement of people and goods, potentially harming economies already vulnerable in the face of an outbreak.
In other words, planners as late as Fall 2019 viewed widespread closures in the event of a pandemic as a risk to be countered via nebulous stuff like “improved decision-making, coordination, and communications.” In this, Event 201 was entirely typical.
This raises an important, if often-neglected question: What about the 2020 response was normal and long-planned, and what about it was novel and unexpected?
We don’t need clandestine plots to elucidate measures that the pandemicists have been formulating entirely in the open and promising to deliver for decades. Where they might help, though, is with strange policies and responses that nobody ever heard of before.
Strictly speaking, none of what happened was all that new. Testing, contact tracing, lockdowns, accelerated vaccine development – all were discussed prior to 2020 as part of an increasingly elaborate and authoritarian pandemic toolkit intended to save us (mostly) from pandemic influenza.
The novelty lay entirely in the application of these measures. To understand it, we must internalise the crucial distinction between mitigation and containment. I can’t emphasise this enough; indeed, if I could wave a wand and put one concept into the heads of everyone pondering this matter, it would be this distinction, that’s how important I find it.
Since SARS-1 in 2003 at least, epidemiologists had planned to respond to limited, localised outbreaks via containment. Infection clusters confined to specific apartment complexes, city blocks or villages would trigger total lockdowns of several weeks, with testing and contact tracing to contain the outbreak before it spread any further. Under containment, you can’t go outside to walk your dog. Everyone gets tested all the time; the tracers follow every transmission chain back to the source. Virus botherers in weird virus suits deliver rations to your doorstep on a stick. Everyone who tests positive is carted off to centralised quarantine. The most widely reported example of containment is what Japanese health authorities did to the Diamond Princess after she returned to Yokohama Port in February 2020.
If containment fails and the virus begins to circulate more broadly, planners envisioned a transition to mitigation strategies. Mitigation is a nebulous cluster of milder measures that, it was hoped, would slow the spread and reduce pressure on hospitals. These measures could involve everything from work-at-home advisories to periodic school closures. It’s true that the pandemicists spent the years after SARS-1 developing ever more authoritarian mitigationist plans, but these were not lockdowns designed to stop the virus. They were, explicitly, about flattening rather than crushing the curve, and they were rooted in doubtful retrospective observational studies of the 1918 influenza pandemic in the United States, which purported to show that periodic school closures could delay (note: not prevent) pandemic mortality.
Where this discussion often goes wrong is the tendency to mistake the escalating mitigationist visions of Western pandemicists for an incipient mass containment plot. This is understandable, but if we maintain an autistic focus on our crucial distinction, we can see that it’s not quite right. Even the famous three-day Ebola lockdown imposed on Sierra Leone in 2014 was a mitigationist measure, because the goal was only to slow the rate of infection, not to beat the virus back or drive the curve downwards.
What happened in January 2020 in China, and then in March 2020 to the rest of the world, was an innovation in theory and practice. Pandemicists decided suddenly to ditch mitigation altogether and attempt virus containment not just in one apartment building, but en masse. All those heavy-handed measures that planners, in a prior era of sanity, had rejected as unscalable beyond the level of the city block, would be applied to whole metropolises, regions and nations, with the goal being to ‘crush the curve’ (rather than flatten it) and perhaps even to achieve zero-Covid by forcing the reproduction number under 1. Diagnostic of mass containment is not its most obtrusive feature, namely lockdowns, but rather mass testing and contact tracing, because the goal in a containment regime is not to slow infections, but to prevent them.
Since the completion of the WHO smallpox vaccination campaign, Western planners had envisioned a pandemic response consisting of months or years of minimal mitigationist measures, followed by accelerated treatment and vaccine development. Studying their wargames and related documents shows that pandemicists before 2020 generally saw it as their duty to forestall public panic and keep economic activity alive. They furthermore assumed that everyone would be deeply grateful for a vaccine and that, if anything, people would have to be prevented from killing each other to get priority access.
What had never been planned was nationwide lockdowns, mass testing and contact tracing to stop a virus circulating across entire hemispheres. How our respective public health establishments ended up discarding their long-standing plans in favour of mass containment is a question I looked into a long time ago, in two posts on the history of lockdowns. In the interests of furthering this discussion, I’ve lifted the paywall on both pieces.
What you’ll find there is much evidence that mass containment came to the West via three specific events, the significance of which became apparent only in retrospect:
- In January and February 2020, all of our governments were pressing ahead with their prior mitigationist pandemic plans. Public health officials talked down the risk of the virus as part of a longstanding strategy to prepare everyone for infection with minimal panic. The WHO dithered, torn internally by a Sinophilic faction eager to minimise events in China and a more concerned faction eager to ring the alarm. When the Hubei lockdown appeared to succeed, these two factions were suddenly aligned. The Sinophiles could agree that the virus was dangerous but the Chinese solution was effective; the alarmists could finally cry fire. The result was a crucial WHO report published on February 24th endorsing Chinese-style mass containment.
- Also at the end of February, Italian health officials had begun imposing confined, village-level lockdowns in specific northern hotspots. This was the ordinary localised containment that the pandemicists had always envisioned, but as authorities widened testing, they began to discover SARS-2 community spread just as that WHO report dropped. There’s a great deal that we don’t know about what happened next, but on March 8th, the Italian government embraced the WHO recommendations from two weeks prior, imposing a region-wide lockdown on all of Lombardy. By March 10th, they extended the closures to all of Italy. The closures were accompanied by heavy pro-lockdown propaganda across social media and growing alarm in the press.
- Finally, Neil Ferguson and his dubious, forever-wrong modelling team at Imperial College London – some of whom had been involved in the early village-level containment in northern Italy – published their inaugural SARS-2 pandemic model on March 16th. This document influenced discussion across the world. It turned early anxiety about ventilator shortages (propagated by China via the WHO) into concrete arguments about how Corona would melt down hospitals, and it was an initial step in the great attempt to make mass containment politically possible (and palatable) to Western populations. Ferguson and his team introduced the idea of technocratic lockdowns, which might consist of only partial and periodic restrictions, rather than universal closures as in Hubei; and they also began to equivocate about what the goals of mass containment actually were. As officially stated, the purpose was merely to hold out for vaccines, which it was hoped would arrive in 18 months. Zero-Covid advocates themselves, however – among them a wealth of prominent bureaucrats and politicians across the world – continued to hope explicitly for indefinite virus suppression or permanent eradication.
All three of these events were powerful stimuli, which acted on the public health establishments of our respective countries in different ways. Some places, like Japan, Sweden and Belarus, remained unswayed and stayed open. Italy, at the other extreme, locked down first and hardest, enacting the only Chinese-style lockdown in the West. Everyone else adopted some version of Fergusonian technocratic closures, placing their faith in the voodoo of the pandemic modellers and never-ending, ever-changing litany of One Cool Tricks. Every country that adopted mass containment grafted it onto existing pandemic plans. Accelerated vaccine development continued in the background.
Now, did these three stimuli emerge spontaneously and influence the governments of our respective countries wholly by accident? No, they did not. There were important plots and conspiratorial actors in these early days. By April at the latest, though, mass containment had become a noxious cluster of autonomous, self-reinforcing policies across Western nations, devised and enforced by domestic scientific advisers and public health bureaucrats who were acting on nobody’s initiative but their own. This is what we see, in excruciating detail, in the leaked Hancock lockdown files, and all the other revelations to date.
As for the conspirators: they are to be sought in the earliest months of 2020. China played a very important role here, through its influence within the WHO, and perhaps also via separate channels. A lot has been said about this angle. Less often discussed is the early influence exercised by social media platforms. It’s very unlikely to be an accident that lockdown mania enjoyed such early favour with the Silicon Valley set, including key, mysteriously viral people like Tomas Pueyo; and that all major social media platforms turned into perpetual lockdown promotion machines after March 10th 2020. Tech companies were also some of the clearest beneficiaries of pandemic policies, profiting from local retail closures and increased demand for online shopping, near-universal reliance on work-at-home software, and the idle attentions of billions of house-arrested people.
The people who don’t play any crucial early role are our go-to globalist villains. The WEF and Bill Gates start demanding lockdowns at the same time as everybody else. Beginning in mid-2020, Klaus Schwab was even pushing his political contacts to declare the pandemic over with, so he could return to ESG concern-trolling. Theories have to be parsimonious and explanatory, and this one just isn’t. It succeeds because it collapses what is actually a complex, multilayered history into a single universal narrative that applies to all countries simultaneously; and because it identifies clear villains and supplies a single, unified reason for the insanity befell us.
Reality is harder than that.
While I can’t compete with all the massive platforms and posters who disagree with me, I can at least, here at the bottom, attempt to head off some common objections.
Many of my critics collapse distinctions between different organisations. They’ll respond to this by saying that “the WEF and the WHO and Gates and China are all the same” or insisting that a WEF affiliation on somebody’s résumé makes them a WEF actor. I can’t agree with this approach. It’s not how we discuss organisations or individuals in any other context. If you lower the resolution enough, all you see are blurry shapes and any theory becomes defensible, but that doesn’t make you right.
Others reason backwards from the ‘lockstep’ coordination of our countries in implementing lockdowns to infer a broader, globalist plot. In every country I’ve studied, lockdowns were the subject of heavy reporting, and I’ve tried to describe in the broadest sense how they actually came about. Law and policy throughout Western countries are actually very highly coordinated in many areas. The reasons for this are diverse, but unless you think every swing in stock or cryptocurrency prices is a specific, deliberate, coordinated conspiracy, you must accept that apparent coordination does not necessarily indicate a plot, and may also arise from things like preference cascades and spontaneous order.
There is, finally, a tendency to read grand policy objectives like Agenda 2030 onto specific contemporary events. I understand that this seems compelling, but there are oceans of globalist aspirational detritus out there, and you can force this vague verbiage into a theory explaining literally anything. Nobody would say that this stuff doesn’t matter, but if you take the opposite approach, of beginning with specific regional or national lockdown policies and following them up the chain, you will literally never end up at Agenda 2030. At the earliest moments of the pandemic, this exercise indeed led to some interesting places; since April 2020, though, you’ll find that everything goes back to local and national politicians, various branches of the bureaucracy, and the public health establishment. That matters.
This piece originally appeared on Eugyppius’s Substack newsletter. You can subscribe 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.
Ukraine’s shock offensive has Russia in ‘disarray’, says the MOD
The Russians still don’t comprehend what is happening to them.
So, in response to popular demand:
Military Strategy for Dummies: The Land Component Lesson 0
Strategy covers, in broad terms, what we should do, how we should do it, and what we should do it with.
Military strategy encompasses, in broad terms, the tasks for the military, the operational doctrine they should pursue and the force posture they should develop and maintain.
Modern strategy deals with the use of military forces in peace as well as in war.
Example of Recommended Strategy for Russian Land Component:
‘If that is your desired endpoint, then I wouldn’t start from here’
‘……agitation for the reduction of US forces in Europe………could rise again if within the US it is thought or perceived, however fairly or unfairly, that Atlantic partners are not bearing an equitable burden………..
Erosion of the effectiveness of the Atlantic army will inevitably result in an erosion of political will, strategic flexibility, and freedom of action.’
‘As a bare minimum, it is the role of the Atlantic army to replace the strategic nuclear deterrent as the instrument with which the attack option is foreclosed to (Russia).
But that is a bare minimum. In a modern strategy the Atlantic army must provide for the West a sense of security to a degree that will encourage it to act and react in respect to global events with confidence. That forecloses to (Russia) the options of intimidation, blackmail, and political leverage.’
‘A stable nuclear balance makes imperative a stable conventional balance in Europe.
Without that stability there can be no political or military counter to expanding (Russian) influence in the Near East, South Asia, Africa, or in the great ocean basins upon which an interdependent world relies. Not the least of these ocean areas are the North Atlantic and North Pacific….’
De Witt Smith 1977
The age old strategy of attack and defence. But the political objectives of the Hundred Years’ War are forgotten.
Was Henry V poisoned by his wife, I wonder?
Did she consider Novichok or Polonium?
Yawn… What’s your point exactly…
It might be expected that the Russians comprehend that their army isn’t going to be in Paris by Christmas.
At least it has been acknowledged that this Kursk ‘incursion’ is for the purposes of Ukrainian negotiations with Russia. If this invasion isn’t an invasion, how can the Ukrainians still argue that their country has been invaded (when it obviously was) and not just suffered an ‘incursion’? What a tangled web etc etc.
It’s inconceivable that the Russians don’t comprehend the significance of a battle at Kursk. And one that features tanks. The historical battle is of such significance to the Russians that they named a nuclear submarine after it. Like Britain naming a battleship after the Battle of Ramillies.
Can it be comprehended that some UK-supplied weapons are authorised to be used inside Russian territory but others cannot?
I agree. There is a great deal that is incomprehensible, not least the complacency of this country and its (for the most part, hopelessly unreliable) allies in the face of rampant long term imperialist expansionism.
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/ukraines-kursk-offensive-marks-putins-third-major-humiliation-of-the-war/
The Kremlin has earmarked 3bn roubles (£26m) on a fortification line in the Kursk region, and a new territorial defence force was supposed to ward off the incursion.
Antipova recalled seeing a high number of border guards during her last visit to Sudzha in May but spoke bitterly of the community having to crowdfund for troops stationed there.
“Locals were bringing them supplies. I’m really annoyed that the government and the army keep saying the troops have all they need – while we had to chip in for drones and underwear.”
Regardless of how this plays out militarily, the political damage is done, and it is rooted in the nature of Russian politics.
Under Putin, the Russian state has become, in essence, an organized crime syndicate. Its internal logic, processes, incentive structure, and behavior resemble those of a mafia family.
And the most destabilizing moment for a crime syndicate is when the mafia boss looks weak.
The only imperialist expansionism is the number of your articles.
The Russians didn’t build massive defences in this rural, forested area because they thought Zelensky wouldn’t be daft enough to attack.
There are increasing numbers of views that the move by Ukraine will significantly shorten the war by the voluntary reduction in their fighting ability, and as such, is actually welcomed by the Russian military.
The bulk of the Ukrainians have based themselves just over the border and are conducting forays with combat tactical groups to various small villages for tourist photo-opportunities and then returning to base (well that’s the theory).
In the meantime, the Russians are happy taking “pot-shots” at the sitting ducks and their supply lines from a safe distance, with one or two close range skirmishes.
During ten days of the invasion of Kursk region, the Ukrainian losses are estimated to be more than 2,500 killed and more than 4,000 wounded and losses of military armour equally significant (I think the tank count is over 70 now, including at least one Challenger 2). There is also plenty of photo-evidence of mass surrenders.
Meanwhile Toretsk and Pokrovsk have had their defence forces depleted and are starved of munitions and supplies in order to feed the Kusrsk extravaganza. As a consequence they are both closely threatened.
What is this talk about Paris? Is this supposed to be serious?
In my opinion, the supply of weapons to be used against Russia is an act of war. We should be damn happy that Russia, or at least Putin, is so intelligent and restrained, because the British government is not.
We no longer have an empire and it is time we stopped believing we can police the world according to our views – and it is time the USA did the same.
‘As soon as the Russians had taken over the town, a local factory was turned into a detention and interrogation facility. At its peak of operations, up to 300 Ukrainians were held there. One Ukrainian who was interrogated there described the way he and other detainees were treated. “They attach clothespins to your ears,’’ he said. “Your hands are tied behind the chair.” He was able to escape; others were not so lucky. Many described beatings, and women were threatened with rape. One local resident, Kostia Tytarenko, who was 21 at the time, was abducted by the Russian military on a highway near Vovchansk in the summer of 2022 and taken to Russia.
In early 2024, when many Western commentators began to talk more insistently about the possibility of a cease-fire between Russia and Ukraine. There was even talk that Putin might be ready to make a deal. Independent journalists and analysts with contacts inside Russia made it clear that Putin was only trying to capitalize on a sense of Western war fatigue, encouraging voices in the West who were questioning continued support for Kyiv at a time when Ukraine was already short on military resources. Russia had no interest in a deal: at the start of the year, Russian generals were already bragging about a possible assault in Kharkiv in May, a plan that was ultimately carried out. It seems likely that the Kremlin was exploiting Western talk of negotiations to try to undermine Ukrainian morale.
Ukrainians have few illusions about how much has been lost, they also understand that now is not the time to negotiate. Although recent polling indicates that more Ukrainians are open to territorial concessions to end the war, these findings are less clear than they may appear. For one thing, even with growing numbers voicing such flexibility, they are still a minority of Ukrainians, and a large majority of the population maintains a high level of confidence in victory. For another, although more Ukrainians may agree today that fighting over a few miles of scorched earth is not that important, that doesn’t mean that more of them are prepared to give up important cities in the east, including those currently under Russian control.
Politically, the Kursk offensive serves another purpose. It allows Kyiv to address its partners from a position of strength and puts the growing debate about potential cease-fire negotiations in a different light. Few Western observers expected any significant Ukrainian offensive this summer, let alone one that could penetrate well into Russia. If nothing else, Kyiv has demonstrated that it is very much still in the fight, easing recent concerns about its staying power. Moreover, Ukrainian troops have shown that they are capable of planning and unleashing a surprise large-scale offensive in total secrecy despite the presence of drones and satellites on the battlefield that can see almost everything.
Militarily, Russia, its higher command incompetent, hopelessly divided, has no clue what Ukraine is up to.’
Nataliya Gumenyuk 16 August 2024
It is very kind of you to promote the Ukraine conflict with such conviction but the Ukrainians are the last people you are helping with your belligerent nonsense.
Reject 15 Minute Cities – latest leaflet to print at home and deliver to neighbours or forward to politicians, your new MP, your local vicar, online media and friends online.
Start a local campaign. We have over 200 leaflet ideas on the link on the leaflet.
This is just cringe, but there’s several of these videos of the police floating around. Should surprise precisely nobody though. They evidently love a bit of ”as-salaam alaykum”. And is it only me clocking the irony of the Pakistani community celebrating their Independence Day while living in the UK? The horror stories I read coming out of that godforsaken hellscape;
”The police shouldn’t be dancing or clowning around while on duty.
It doesn’t matter what the event is – they should be professional, approachable, and focused on public safety at all times.
All it does is undermine their authority and erodes respect. They’re a laughing stock.”
https://x.com/addicted2newz/status/1824571604371648935
Can anyone explain to me why it is the government that awards pay deals to ASLEF in a privatised industry?
Because in the real world, it’s all managed by the Treasury. Only some of the train operating companies are nominally private, but if, or when, they go bust their operations are taken over by the DfT, which is an operator of last resort (OLR).
Truly excellent point! I struggle to think how you could meaningfully and successfully privatise the track infrastructure – we tried it and that failed. Perhaps someone who thinks we can could explain how. The train operators are close to being regional monopolies with a few exceptions and because of the nature of railways I can’t see how you get round that. In theory there’s some incentive for them to run more efficiently to make more profit, but it doesn’t seem to work that well. Their prices are regulated and so are their costs (use of the infrastructure). I think we may as well cut out the middleman and nationalise them. Other suggestions/comments welcome! (I generally prefer free markets).
Since covid when the government pumped in millions (billions?) to keep the railways going when passenger numbers fell and revenue for the private companies dropped off a cliff, the government changed the contracts. Now because the private companies receive so much extra government cash, the contracts say that any significant spending must be approved by the DFT. So that is why the pay award is from the government. The private companies were not allowed to negotiate direct.
In the scenario you have described the private business would have to go to HMT with a request which would be considered and a decision made. In this case HMG seems to have dealt direct with the Union and instructed the business to spend the money.
I wonder if that corresponds with the law.
If I understand you correctly it’s an interesting point – is the pay rise (and subsequently higher NI and pension contributions) completely ringfenced from the private companies? Is there an impact on shareholders with these costs that have been imposed on them? I don’t know. I suppose it’s a bit like the government imposing increases to the minimum wage that private companies don’t get a say in.
I don’t think these are proper private businesses and the firms getting into this game know that very well.
How odd that a looter receives a substantial (and just) prison sentence while persistent shoplifters who might get away with merchandise of far greater value are seemingly of so low a priority for the authorities that in Middlesborough the police hand out crime numbers to shop owners for insurance purposes but otherwise do nothing else.
Yep, as western birth rates plummet, the UK needs to build a new city to find homes for 350,000 people. And our overlords do this whilst simultaneously telling us that anyone that opposes mass uncontrolled immigration is a reincarnation of Hitler. Go figure.
Now the fox is in the henhouse it cannot be stopped, and this is just the very beginning. It’s natural conclusion sees the English replaced by migrants – that’s not racist, that’s simple logic based on birth rates.
That would be a good sized city, but would accommodate less than 60% of net (legal) migration from the year 2022. So where are the other cities going to be?
Quite. This is just one of many planned. A mixture of scattering and grouping seems to be the plan.
Also, where on earth are these people now? They can’t all be hot bedding in sheds at the end of the garden, surely?
The list of things here – more bizarre & devoid of rational thought is getting a tad depressing. Don’t know how the DS team remain so upbeat.
Thanks all – my must-read morning schedule here just about covers an entire picture of the world gone mad..
On a more upbeat note, what’s your signature dish, if I may ask?
eggs – any way ……
She said “How you gonna like ’em, over medium or scrambled?”
You say “Anyway’s the only way”, be careful not to gamble
On a guy with a suitcase and a ticket getting out of here
It’s a tired bus station and an old pair of shoes
This ain’t nothing but an invitation to the blues
Spectacular response, tof … had to check the reference with Mr Google. Tom Waits – Invitation to the Blues
One of his best songs IMO – and that’s a high bar
Used to great effect at the opening of that splendid Nic Roeg film “Bad Timing”
I love an egg – anyway, I think you’re just being humble…
too kind – the egg is a wonderful thing – the variety of functions an egg can have in any dish are remarkable due to the makeup of ‘an egg’ – say proteins and fats.
I’m a good plain cook but can make a towering pavlova or a perfect souffle or hollandaise or custard or or or….
The perfect egg to poach – for example – comes freshly laid from a chicken that has been exposed to a diet of variety – it genuinely is pretty special.
My last meal? – 3 and a half minute boiled eggs and soldiers….white pepper and a touch of salt. I’m a simple soul.
“Data unearthed via the Freedom of Information Act shows how few days civil servants spend in the office, reports the Mail.”
Oh will you give over! FOI request – what % of DS articles and editorial activity, technical support work is done in an “office” vs. at home or wherever the team and contributors happen to be?
DS team is modest in size, consists of motivated people with skills the boss wants.
civil servants are multitudinous, couldn’t care less and most are semi skilled.
now do you understand.
Sounds like the issue is not WHERE they work but WHO they employ and what their incentives are.
“The eco-terrorists have a plan to storm Windsor Castle, reports the Independent.”
Much as I find them loathsome, Extinction Rebellion are not “terrorists”. They cause disruption and should be sanctioned as appropriate when protest is deliberately done to cause disruption, but they do not cause “terror”.
They cause terror. They are terrorists who seek to achieve their incoherent goals through disruption not the ballot box.
What have they done that has induced “terror” in anyone? Disruption and terror are not the same thing.
Any damage and disruption must be coverted into money and they should be made to pay every single penny of that back to society, these are generally rich brats with nothing else to do! Hit them were it hurts, in the wallet!
That could be an approach – but we’d need to go after whoever is funding them too
That may filter upwards eventually and even their paymasters might think twice
Sadly not going to happen
Not after those concerned bung £1m towards the gang now in government…
Indeed… take a step forward, Mr Vince…
“U.K. riots: Judge hands down longest jail sentences yet”
All we need now is a Gulag on the Falklands and government dissent will be obliterated!
“Attempts to appease strikers risks emboldening British unions and invites more chaos”
Welcome back to 1979!
Do we ever learn?
“First case of ultra-deadly mpox strain has hit Europe”
An African based disease entering Europe, who could have possibly brought that here?
“Ultra deadly”
Which propoganda organ is spouting that bollox?
It is NOT deadly.
Moneypox is a false flag intended to soften us up for the new deadly, deadly, deadly coronavirus due some time before Christmas.
I bet they’ve already planned a time and date!
Just received a couple of updates to the OED:
Keirpitulate : (Verb) When you pretend to negotiate but really just give your sponsors money.
Keirmunism : (Noun) A political philosophy in which you imprison people you don’t like.
https://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/news/regulation/doctors-to-take-legal-action-against-gmc-over-inaction-on-covid-vaccine-misinformation/
Doctors?
A group of “doctors?”
If the bloody GMC was worth anything it would strip this lot of their fitness to practice. No wonder they want to remain anonymous. Who the hell would trust one of these idiots for medical advice.
And to cap it all the ignorant lard arses are attempting to get others to pay for their legal action. Doctors, one hundred of them, who probably average at least £100k per annum cannot chip in as little as a thousand a piece. So not only are they medically illiterate they are hopeless with money? Or perhaps simply not willing to spend some of their own fraudulently acquired lucre.
Par for the course in this failed state.
https://dailysceptic.org/2024/08/17/almost-14000-people-are-seeking-compensation-saying-covid-vaccines-left-them-disabled/
This doesn’t look good for the above doctors does it?
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/extinction-rebellion-windsor-castle-plan-camp-leaked-zoom-call-b2596724.html
Just get on with it please and stop arsing about.
Some say:
1) Viruses do not exist
2) This monkeypox is actually cholera, which presents pox-like skin blisters that can rapidly cause sepsis and death, especially to immune-compromised people such as those practicing sodomy, who comprise the majority of African victims of this latest “monkeypox”. This sodomy is forced upon most African men in their “coming of age” rituals at puberty, kept secret from the women.
3) Do you remember that 1971 movie “The Music Lovers”, about the life of Russian composer Tchaikovsky, played by the late great Richard Chamberlain? At the end, he commits suicide by drinking water contaminated with cholera bacteria “Vibrio cholerae”, which gives him terrible skin blisters or “bullae”, developing into “necrotising fascitiis” all over his body, including his face. The only known treatment at the time was immersing the patient in scalding water to cleanse the open sores, which of course resulted in an agonising death. The point is that end-stage cholera presents the same bacterially-infected skin lesions as “monkeypox”.
“Man, 32, is first adult charged with higher punishable crime of riot”
Can someone please explain the difference between these two crimes?
“VIOLENT DISORDER, which means a person INTENDS to use or threaten violence, or is aware their conduct MAY be violent or threaten violence.”
“A person is guilty of RIOT if INTENDING to use violence, or being aware their conduct MAY be violent.”
So in both cases, you can be charged, convicted and thrown into prison for up to a decade, even WITHOUT ACTUALLY BEING VIOLENT???
Just “INTENDING” to be, according to the judge???
Unless you’re part of a Muslim Gang brandishing machetes and disembowelling daggers, while marching in English streets???
“Harry and Meghan’s VP host demanding billions from West for slavery”
Well, surely Harry & Meghan will be the first to hand over some of their £millions to their female Ethnic African Vice-President host in Columbia. Just to show willing, you know.