That headline isn’t mine. Rather, it was the name of a paper written by my father Michael Young and his colleague Edward Shills in 1953 about the Coronation of HRH Elizabeth II and published in an academic journal called Sociological Review. You can download it here – it’s terrific. Drawing on the work of Emile Durkheim, they argue that the Coronation was an affirmation of the moral values by which our society lives – an act of national communion. They summarise their hypothesis as follows:
A society is held together by its internal agreement about the sacredness of certain fundamental moral standards. In an inchoate, dimply perceived, and seldom explicit manner, the central author of an orderly society, whether it be secular or ecclesiastical, is acknowledged to be the avenue of communication with the realm of the sacred values. Within its society, popular constitutional monarchy enjoys almost universal recognition in this capacity, and it is therefore enabled to heighten the moral and civil sensibility of the society and to permeate it with symbols of those values to which the sensitivity responds. Intermittent rituals bring the society or varying sectors of it repeatedly into contact with this vessel of the sacred values. The Coronation provided at one time and for practically the entire society such an intensive contact with the sacred that we believe we are justified in interpreting it as we have done in this essay, as a great act of national communion.
Is that also true of the Coronation we witnessed today? The sacred symbols were all there – the Coronation Chair, commissioned by Edward I; the orb; the imperial state crown that includes a ruby Henry V wore at the Battle of Agincourt. But for the people watching it on television, did it feel as if they were making contact with a realm of sacred values? Did the ceremony embody the fundamental moral standards that characterise British society? Was it an act of national communion?
It is tempting to answer ‘no’ because the whole affair was so deeply rooted in Christianity, from the role of the Archbishop of Canterbury to the blasts of choral music, and we are a post-Christian society. A lot of the the commentary – I flitted back and forth between the BBC and GB News – focused on the way in which this Coronation ceremony had been updated compared with the last one, with peers representing the different faiths, a female bishop taking part, the address by our Hindu Prime Minister, etc. But the most striking thing about it was how little had changed since 1953. I kept an eye out for the intrusion of ‘woke’ elements, but I was disappointed – or, rather, pleasantly surprised. In essence, Charles’s kingly authority was conferred on him by God, as was explicit in the most mystical part of the ceremony when he was anointed with holy water standing behind a screen in his shirtsleeves. What sacred meaning could that possibly have for people who don’t believe in God?
But I think that’s based on a superficial understanding of the meaning of the ceremony. Shills and Young also describe the Britain of 1953 as a ‘post-Christian’ society and while there were many more church-goers back then, how many of them understood all the Christian elements in the Coronation? Indeed, the fact that much of it was incomprehensible – then, as now, many parts of the ceremony seemed completely bizarre, like the placing of a rod into the hands of the monarch – is part of what makes it so quintessentially British. That dimension of it was captured nicely by the Australian rock star Nick Cave, who was in attendance today. In his blog a few days ago, he included his response to various tetchy emails he’d received asking him why he was bothering to go:
I once met the late Queen at an event at Buckingham Palace for ‘Aspirational Australians living in the U.K.’ (or something like that). It was a mostly awkward affair, but the Queen herself, dressed in a salmon coloured twin-set, seemed almost extraterrestrial and was the most charismatic woman I have ever met. Maybe it was the lighting, but she actually glowed. As I told my mother – who was the same age as the Queen and, like the Queen, died in her nineties – about that day, her old eyes filled with tears. When I watched the Queen’s funeral on the television last year I found, to my bafflement, that I was weeping myself as the coffin was stripped of the crown, orb and sceptre and lowered through the floor of St. George’s Chapel. I guess what I am trying to say is that, beyond the interminable but necessary debates about the abolition of the monarchy, I hold an inexplicable emotional attachment to the Royals – the strangeness of them, the deeply eccentric nature of the whole affair that so perfectly reflects the unique weirdness of Britain itself. I’m just drawn to that kind of thing – the bizarre, the uncanny, the stupefyingly spectacular, the awe-inspiring.
So, that is part of its meaning – for many, the Coronation embodied the uniqueness of our country. Not an affirmation of our sacred values, perhaps, but a celebration of our eccentricity, our oddness. Some people dislike the Royal Family and point to its vast wealth, as well as the cost of staging events like this (£250 million). Couldn’t that money be better spent helping the disadvantaged? But most Britons have a strong attachment to the monarchy and I suspect that’s partly because no other country can put on a show like this. For better or worse, this is what we’re famous for, this is why millions of tourists come to Britain every year to see the Royal Palaces and hope to catch a glimpse of the occupants.
There’s also the fact that the Royals are a family, something that’s central to the institution’s meaning for many people. Shills and Young cite Bagehot’s explanation of how the actions of a retired widow and unemployed youth (Queen Victoria and the Prince of Wales) become of such importance: they are members of a family and, as such, they are relatable for the mass of ordinary Britons. To be sure, some members of the Firm in attendance today were conspicuous by their black sheep status, but it was the web of family relationships surrounding Charles that provided some of the most touching moments, such as when his son William helped dress him after he’d been anointed. What Shills and Young say about this aspect of the 1953 Coronation could equally have been said about today’s:
The family, despite the ravages of urban life and despite those who allege that it is in dissolution, remains one of the most sinewy of institutions. The family tie is regarded as sacred, even by those who would, or do, shirk the diffuse obligations it imposes. The Coronation, like any other great occasion which in some manner touches the sense of the sacred, brings vitality into family relationships. The Coronation, much like Christmas, was a time for drawing closer the bonds of the family, for reasserting its solidarity and for reemphasising the values of the family – generosity, loyalty, love – which are at the same time the fundamental values necessary for the well-being of the larger society. When listening to the radio, looking at the television, walking the streets to look at the decorations, the unit was the family, and neither mother nor father were far away when their children sat down for cakes and ice cream at one of the thousands of street and village parties held that week. Prominent in the crowds were parents holding small children on their shoulders and carrying even smaller ones in cradles. In all towns over the country, prams were pushed great distances to bring into contact with the symbols of the great event infants who could see or appreciate little. It was as if people recognised that the most elementary unit for entry into communion with the sacred was the family, not the individual.
So, yes, it was a deeply odd occasion and it probably meant a little less to today’s Britons than the Coronation of Queen Elizabeth did 70 years ago. But the revelation for me today was how meaningful it all was, how much of a connection there still is between the British people and their monarch, how little disenchantment there is with the symbols and rituals of a dying religion, as well as the great outpouring of affection from ordinary people, not just towards this jug-eared 74 year-old and his wife, his son, his daughter-in-law and his grandchildren, but towards each other. Britain did not feel like a country gradually succumbing to strife and division today, but a strong nation, still quietly patriotic, still with a high degree of social solidarity, still capable of renewal.
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.
The trouble is, Mr Hancock, we don’t want to be governed by anybody like you. You have shown not only your capacity to make mistakes, but also your inability to learn from them.
The fascist arrogant stupidity of this little soy boy Hancock is simply off the charts. LDs do nothing against a virus whose IFR was the same as the flu’s. It makes evthg 100x worse. LDs destroy natural immunity and create untold health and social problems.
And the little fa**ot lies and lies and lies and intones ‘body bags’…like the 30K he murdered in old age homes behind closed doors with midazolam. Why no questions on midazolam, the real IFR, the dead/injured/destroyed/bankrupted from LDs, the dancing nurses and docs in empty hospitals? Why nothing on the dead and injured from the poison stabs – as if a shoulder shot filled with HEK cells from a murdered baby + toxins will save you from a ‘viral’ infection. This inquiry is a shit show of idiots.
This outcome is what the inquiry will recommend – LD harder next time, with no exceptions, shut down evthg, and go door to door and stab everyone with the poisons.
The entire quackcine industry is a fraud built on a lie. But that is simply too much work for most people to figure out.
Well put. I feel your anger and share it absolutely. A complete sham and no attempt to even hide that fact. Talk about a two-finger gesture to the country and its citizens. The trouble is so many will simply give slack-lipped grunts that they believe the fuxxwits did it properly, and the dratsabs will get clean away with the crime of the century. The truth is, in so many cases, such as this pratt, that they properly deserve the death penalty, and I have never advocated the death penalty before.
This is nonsense and cedes the point that there was a pandemic, that it was novel ie not just a ‘flu virus and even worse that “lockdown” was the correct and actually the only viable response.
There was NO pandemic.
Covid was a re-branded ‘flu.
And because this was a respiratoy virus lockdown was a wholly inappropriate response.
If we on DS have not yet seen through the scam…
I hope you don’t mean that I was ceding the point!
If you were not you should have been clear that you were not.
Very well controlled/restrained from you HP, completely agree. See my reply to FerdIII above or below whichever…
And the level of hypocrisy they practice.
This “inquiry” is predetermined to find that harder, faster, sooner, longer lockdowns were needed & to propose that the only solution to doing this when the next “pandemic” hits is to cede all power to the WHO.
Disreputable witness.
Please stop reporting on the inquiry. It’s part of the Big Lie.
No, we need to hear their lies and obfuscation to counter them.
We’ve heard them all.
The inquiry is more theatre designed to cement the Big Lie.
I agree tof – all part of the theatre of the reset.
It’s not pleasurable to listen to these idiotic tyrants, but as Hermione Granger* stated in Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, it is important to know what the enemy is saying, hence her reading the Daily Prophet which spouts all the rubbish. See also “keep your friends close, and your enemies closer”. Many people are still hanging on every word the government says; we need to know what lies are being peddled to them. (*For clarity, that is the fictional character of Hermione; not Emma Watson who plays her.)
However, I sympathise that it is tempting to avoid the enemy’s broadcasts. I fear that one day, it might become a reality that state propaganda is forcibly spoken in your home whether you want it or not, via telescreen or modern equivalent such as Alexa, as predicted by George Orwell. I exercised my right to refuse to watch Saint Boris on his pedestal when he delivered his “no but yeah but no but yeah but you must stay at home but you must go to work but you must eat out but you must not sit on park benches” gibberish; ditto Platty Joobs, the funeral, and the coronation, while I still have the power not to watch them.
We know all the lies already. We don’t need to hear them again. The inquiry has no legitimacy. There was no pandemic.
This inquiry is supposed to pave the way for the next non-pandemic. And that’s why it’s important. The 1918 – 1920 outburst of murderous idiocy in the USA was gruesome enough that it took a little over a century to get this off the ground again, despite numerous attempts at it. We should aim for making that two centuries next time.
“We should aim for making that two centuries next time.”
Why? I won’t be here. In fact the way things are going humanity might not be here.This is the same logic that is being used against us with net zero – we need to achieve net zero for the sake of those not born.
Utter BULLSHIT.
I’m not responsible for nonsense you’re carrying around in your head.
In an ideal universe, there would be such a reckoning for Corona’s apostles that no one would dare to rerun this scam (or stand any chance to) for centuries to come. I wouldn’t mind forever, although I probably won’t be around that long.
“I’m not responsible for nonsense you’re carrying around in your head.”
And I am not in the business of insulting people. It would appear a touch more research is required on your part, but don’t over do it.
And I am not in the business of insulting people.
More in the business of not understanding people.
I am aware that English is not your first language but that does not permit rudeness for the sake of it.
Did the possibility that you could really have misunderstood what I wrote ever occur to you, most divine and omiscient being? And – assuming that you did which you did – that your whole diatribe about something I didn’t write but you wanted to pin onto me nevertheless was thus extremely rude from the start?
I saw a few clips of that hearing on GBN around 12:00 today. Alongside that, they interviewed a guy in Cambridge, labelled as a “Virologist”, who sounded like the types in the old SAGE group, who evidently had an obsessive attitude to the whole thing. Probably available if you know where to look = broadcast around 12:00 – 13:00 27/6.
What is not clear is what the questioning is like for witnesses like Hancock, although it’s obvious that he was in defensive mode, not actually operating in the interests of the general public.
At the end of the day, the major flaw for anyone like that is the belief that something could be done, and they had to do whatever it was, even in the absence of proper research, and in a fashion that overrides their authority. Later on, they are still claiming that they were innocent so as to defend themselves, and to justify doing it all again, when the opportunity arises.
The impression I got from watching today’s hearing was that the Enquiry’s KC was determined to lead the narrative in a particular direction, basically to blame the disastrous handling of the “deadly plague” on Brexit, and the failure of the government to act quickly and hard enough to impose various restrictions after the threat emerged.
It was clear that, if Hancock nodded along with these central premises, he knew he would be spared further humiliating questions. In this regard, it really was similar to the Stalinist Show Trials.
“after the threat emerged.”
What threat?
Perhaps the outcome that hardly anyone would believe what he said.
There was NO pandemic.
Thanks for pointing this out
All cause mortality in 2020 highest since 2008 most likely thanks to denial of healthcare
We simply cannot allow this fantasy and fabrication to be given any credence whatsoever
If it had not been hyped up nobody would have noticed
Hear, hear.
The problem, Mr Matthew, is that we seem to be unable to lock you down hard and fast enough.
What realm is this psychopathic, delusional, mass-murderer operating in? There are not enough words in the English language to convey my utter contempt for this revolting POS so I won’t even begin. What I will say though is no bloody wonder he was so worried about having enough body bags. That’ll be because he had his own objective to accomplish which involved finishing off the elderly with his secret weapon he made sure to bulk buy;
”The above exchange took place in a parliamentary committee meeting on the 17th April 2020 between Matt Hancock and Dr Evans, who is a fellow Conservative MP.
The following is an extract from an article which confirms the United Kingdom purchased two years worth of Midazolam in March 2020 and were looking to purchase much more –
Supplies of the sedative midazolam have been diverted from France as a “precaution” to mitigate potential shortages in the NHS caused by COVID-19, the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) has told The Pharmaceutical Journal.
A spokesperson from Accord Healthcare, one of five manufacturers of the drug, told The Pharmaceutical Journal that it had to gain regulatory approval to sell French-labelled supplies of midazolam injection to the NHS, after having already sold two years’ worth of stock to UK wholesalers “at the request of the NHS” in March 2020.
The DHSC said the request for extra stock was part of “national efforts to respond to the coronavirus outbreak”, which included precautions “to reduce the likelihood of future shortages”.
Why on earth would the United Kingdom need to purchase two years worth of Midazolam, a drug associated with respiratory suppression and respiratory arrest, to treat a disease that causes respiratory suppression and respiratory arrest?
The evidence suggests that the Liverpool Care Pathway returned with a vengeance in April 2020 under the direction of the Health Secretary Matt Hancock, Government Advisors and NHS Chiefs, and it looks as if it was used to manipulate you into giving up over one year of your life under the pretence that you were staying at home, to protect the NHS and save lives. But the evidence suggests that in reality you were ordered to stay at home, to protect the NHS, so that they could prematurely end the lives of the elderly and vulnerable and tell you that they were Covid deaths.”
https://expose-news.com/2021/08/29/midazolam-was-used-to-prematurely-end-the-lives-of-thousands-who-you-were-told-had-died-of-covid-19/
Hancock is a small and narrow minded bureaucrat, of limited ability, who despite not understanding what he was doing, or its consequences, went completely power crazy.
He was not alone, his other colleagues, spurred on by the media and supra-national bodies and other outside interference were absolutely the same. Total flap-wombles…
Surely he has now proved that he has zero ability in anything, and should be locked up for our safety?
Tw*t. Don’t tell me “he acted on expert advice” tw*ts.
I can tell you the outcome of the ‘enquiry’ now.
Tories – insert any name you want to fit up, failed to protect the pubic from ‘naturally occurring’ virus…….
“I understand deeply the consequences of lockdown”
No, you don’t. You don’t understand anything. You’re a self-regarding intellectual runt whose station in a just world would be cleaning toilets. And you’d probably cock that up.
I’d replace the term intellectual with something else. I think he was an estate agent before he became an MP.
PPE degree, first briefly worked for his father’s software business, then housing marked economist at BoE, then advisor and chief of staff for Osborne, then career politician. Never worked during in all of his life would also capture it. Considering that this motormouth imbecile is also six years younger than me, I find that rather annoying. What kind of experience with anything does this Family relations rule! toad have that would qualify him to order others around? And why is he allowed to testify on issues completely outside of whatever feeble expertise he might have?
agreed…..and we are listening to anything this twat has to say because??
Matt Hancock and lover were at Downing St party on same day he told Brits to keep 2m apart
Former health secretary Matt Hancock is to be questioned in the next few days by senior civil servant Sue Gray, who is investigating whether members of the Government broke Covid restrictions at a series of parties
The problem is that the COVID inquiry is listening to what this trans health expert has to say despite his only notable accomplishment is that he hired his mistress as an aide so that she could to aid him in getting through those damn long and boring office days.
Matt Hancock has 72 genders and when he’s through with all of them, he’ll just start over. Nobody can tell if he was als born with a sex and if so, which it might be.
The problem with Matt Hancock is that he still hasn’t been hit hard enough for long enough to understand that dragging other people needlessly through the shit (emerde) may sometimes even have negative consequences for corrupt politicians seeking to harm the population boundlessly(!) in the name of the mighty dollar. I deeply understand that this is really bad for people I don’t give a shit about! is not good enough, mate.
Wow.
Hancock had too little control!
Megalomaniac.
He knows the square root of F. all about virology as well as all matters medical. – and anything else it would seem.
Christ, there’s something wrong about our so called democratic system that enables idiots such as he to get in a position of power. He was our “Health Secretary” for God’s sake.
Think about that.
May he and his ilk rot in hell because there’s little reason to suppose bastards such as him will get their just desserts in this world.
We all meet our maker.
This inquiry is a F.ing joke.
Oh how I dearly wish the likes of Joel Smalley, Prof Fenton, Prof Martin Neil, Denis Rancourt or any of the many more trusted sources of truth diseminated via cold, hard data would be able to give evidence. They’d refute every single lie brazenly being spouted easily. I know we have Prof Heneghen but how many other truth-tellers? I just see a load of corrupt sociopaths that are paid to lie, manipulate and insult our intelligence.
Seriously, if just one person could ask one of the cretins why they didn’t just do as Sweden did, given how successful their non-controversial, ‘by the book’ approach was, then that would save everyone a great deal of time. Because now I feel that what we have is a very protracted and elaborate collective wangling out of taking responsibility and avoidance of being held to account, going round in convoluted circles, getting precisely nowhere.
And what we must remember is this; if these disgusting psychos can abuse us so readily and even enthusiastically during PsyOp19, they’ll obviously not hesitate in signing over all of our freedoms and personal liberties to the WHO without hesitation and even relish it. They enjoy it because they’re all drunk on power and their egos can’t get enough of being in the role of oppressor. No amount of control is too much. If they’d had an ounce of compassion they would have, for instance, stood in solidarity with Andrew Bridgen, but they couldn’t even stick around and perform the basic courtesy of hearing his speech. The invited MPs would have joined him and the public recently who lost loved ones to Mat Midazolam. Again, crickets. Their actions tell us all we need to know I think.
Hancock is an unimportant cog in a bigger global machine. We should ignore him and focus on exposing the puppet masters.
Presume the dislike is from a cock up theorist. Yeah, it was all just Hancock’s incompetence.
If a government & a particularly despicable former ‘Health Minister’ were prepared to destroy a generation of children, cripple the economy, and destroy a nation in the attempt to ‘Save Lives’ for a ‘virus’ that had a survival rate of 99.8%, then you know they are not acting in good faith and most likely with malicious, perhaps even evil, anti human intent.
Be ready for the next time they pull this…it has already been rehearsed…SERS-2025….
Heum…didn’t Deagle forecast a 77% reduction in the UK population by 2025? …..strange innit…
Thank you for making these points.
He wrote an article in the Telegraph about 18 months ago where he said, clearly to justify the disastrous policies that were put in place, ‘there was no plan to follow’. Loads of people wrote in mentioning the Pandemic Preparedness Plan.
Yet again, here, he says, ‘The doctrinal flaw was the biggest by a long way because if we’d had a flu pandemic, we still would have had the problem of no plan in place for lockdown, no prep for how to do one, no work on what, how best to lock down with the least damage’.
There was a plan, you complete and utter moron and specifically for influenza and it specifically ruled out lockdowns. Why did it rule out lockdowns, because over many years, many experts concluded that lockdowns would not help and would probably do more harm than good. Yet, you didn’t know about its existence. Why not?
How do these people get to positions of such power and influence and not have any idea at all about anything. All MPs should have certain qualifications as standard and then specific qualifications for ministerial positions e.g. medical qualifications to be Health Secretary, Science and Maths qualifications for other positions, so that they understand things and can challenge and question ‘advisors’ such as the Chief Medical Officer and also not be bamboozled by their advisors.
He cannot be allowed to display such total incompetence and ignorance and get away with it.
I don’t have any medical or scientific qualifications beyond Maths O Level but I spotted the fake. He is not educationally subnormal. Whitty and Vallance are well qualified. It’s not an intelligence problem, it’s an issue with character and incentives. It’s not incompetence. I wouldn’t employ Hancock as a project manager, because he doesn’t seem especially bright, but excellent execution is not what was required from HMG. All they had to do was say no and do more or less nothing.
I agree that all the government had to do was say no. You have inferred lots from what I wrote that simply wasn’t implied or certainly wasn’t meant to be.
The main point was that Hancock has repeatedly said that there was no plan, when there was. Any holder of a cabinet position should know about plans, protocols etc.
I think it’s pretty clear that he is saying there was no plan for lockdowns, which is true
They either panicked momentarily and then doubled down because they didn’t want to look silly or they knew it was nonsense from the start
Either way, it doesn’t look like incompetence to me
I am stunned that this creature can come out in public at all, after what he has done, the cruelty he metred out, the hubris, the sheer pleasure he took in hurting people, damaging them, his arrogance in openly feeling up his fellow adulterer in his workplace, when he was behind the rules imprisoning and fining people for seeing their families. He is disgusting a gollum creature who needs to be confined to the shadows where he came from.
An affront to the realm of the sacred and a real euthanasia enthusiast. The sad reality is that many people agree with him and a substantial number wished for the lockdown to continue forever. If you look at deposed leaders: Nicolae Ceaujescu for example and his wife – as soon as they were stripped of the power of the state they looked like wretches. If we don’t accept that the system is the sickness then we are doomed. And we waste our time trying to find a political solution to a spiritual problem.
Watching Hancocks mouth is the same as watching a cows arse exactly the same material is ejected.
Cow shit smells better.
Hancock is truly God-like.
He can stop pandemics and deploy variants at will….
Why this man is not in jail beggars belief.
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/yeadon-delingpole-and-why-the-vaccines-could-never-have-been-safe/
Dr Mike Yeadon and James Delingpole discussing the vacc…apologies, injections.
Listened to it yesterday
They have to get the predictable ”anti-vax” slur in at the end don’t they? Tossers!
”After he finished giving evidence, Matt Hancock approached the public gallery, attempting to apologise to families who lost loved ones in the pandemic – but it backfired.
Amanda Herring Murrell, whose brother Mark died in March 2020, said: “I wasn’t having any of it. I was like ‘No, don’t you even think about it, and I turned my back on him.’
“He was looking for forgiveness but I said ‘You’ll be forever looking for forgiveness because you’re not going to get it off the bereaved.'”
Recounting the exchange outside the inquiry, Ms Herring Murrell was shaking with emotion.
“He is absolutely disgraceful,” she told Sky News.
“Our loved ones died on his watch. And he should be held accountable.”
Mr Hancock left the inquiry to shouts of “murderer” by anti-vax protesters.”
https://news.sky.com/story/covid-inquiry-latest-matt-hancock-giving-evidence-on-uks-preparedness-for-pandemic-12898206
The fundamental basis of the genuine libertarian / egalitarian / democratic approach is the spiritual-moral one – ‘Hate the sin, love the sinner’; in other words where necessary condemn ideas and actions whilst maintaining full respect for those upholding and carrying them out.
The outpouring of scapegoating hatred and personalised condemnation on this thread is just the mirror image of the ‘Lockdown, mask and vaccine dissidents are selfish, evil and responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands’.
To put this metaphorically it is as much a duty to defend Matt Hancock’s right to put forward his point of view in these areas as it is those of Dr Sunetra Gupta.
Then after listening to them to come to our own conclusions – the whole point of the concept of free speech and thought.
Well I’m not a Christian so loving sinners isn’t something I strive to do. I don’t think I “hate” anyone, and I certainly don’t “hate” Hancock. But he has demonstrated a pattern of behaviour that tells me that if he’s in charge of things then he is quite likely to do things that will end up harming me and my family, so I don’t have a great deal of time for him and certainly do not “respect”.
As for him expressing his views, I’m more than happy for him to do so, but less happy that the state is spending £114+M of our money on doubling down on the evil that has been inflicted.
This isn’t about simple differences of opinion. I have no interest in dictating how Hancock should live his life, but he deployed the power of the state to ruin mine and that of my family. This is a war, a fight for the survival of the concept of individual freedom and responsibility against collectivism run amok.
Anyway, as I have posted below, Hancock is a bit player of little importance and the inquiry is part of the Big Lie and should simply be laughed out of court as lacking any legitimacy.
Well that put Sontol back in his box. Cracking post tof. For me keeping my anger at bay when lying murderers such as Midazolam Mat start spouting means that I tend to go off on one.
Well done.
First of all I am not a Christian or member of any organised religion but do believe that we all have an eternal (and ultimately perfect) soul, which is why I couched my point in non-denominational spiritual-moral terminology (though I fully accept that using a biblical-type quotation could have lead to this confusion).
In any case my points were not directed at any of the many perfectly valid criticisms of Matt Hancock’s performance both as Health Minister and now during the Covid Inquiry present in this thread – I think that his and the state in general’s response to the novel coronavirus from early 2020 on was (and increasingly so) irrational, illiberal, dogmatic and long-term massively harmful in all sorts of ways, including health-related, and Mr Hancock’s doubling-down on the Lockdown narrative deserving of huge condemnation – but purely the unnecessary and unhelpful personalised aspects.
Apart from the general moral rule of universal respect (I obviously disagree with your contention that this needs to be somehow ‘earned’) it is ridiculous to single out individuals from amongst the tens of millions who supported the general tyrannical approach to COVID19 in this country alone, never mind the billions across the world.
What needs to be addressed are the underlying and hugely popular ideological trends (eg long-standing ultra-health and concomitant ultra-eco / Net Zero related dictatorial philosophies and agendas), not an illusory and harmful course of individual finger-pointing, blame and punishment.
“This is a war, a fight for the survival of the concept of individual freedom and responsibility against collectivism run amok.”
I am afraid I find this to be an internally entirely contradictory statement – war precisely is the ultimate expression of humanity’s tendencies to collectivised sectarianism – an invented good ‘us’ versus an equally manufactured malign ‘them’.
And alongside the basic moral points I am putting forward here I am trying to make a stand against an increasing tendency on the Daily Sceptic and elsewhere to attempt to co-opt all those who believe in individual freedom / oppose intrinsically totalitarian and harmful agendas such as viral Lockdowns and Climate Change / Green measures into a single manufactured ideological block.
One which in its basically anti-democratic outlook (‘multi-party liberal democracy is a sham’ / ‘all democratic politicians such as Matt Hancock are liars and charlatans’ / ‘the world is in fact completely controlled by a shadowy elite in Davos’ etc), own irrational ultra-health positions (‘the jags and 5M are going to kill us all’, ‘eat only healthy locally grown organic food’), again division of the world into conflicting hierarchical sectarian categories (eg ‘the awakened’ versus ‘normies’) merely mirrors that of the pro-lockdown and Net Zero movement.
And alongside the harm all of this anti-democratic activity is causing domestically it merely furthers the interests and goals of currently fully-tyrannical nations such as the Russian Federation, China and Iran – who are not doubt covertly supporting it / cheering it all on.
Regimes / political agendas which would shut down the Daily Sceptic / intern (at best) all major related figures the milli-second they achieved power.
I agree Hancock is a tiny part of the overall mechanism and that our ultimate goal must be to win the war of ideas. I didn’t find the posts especially vitriolic or personal but if some are then I would say it is understandable venting in the main and not of great significance. I think it’s more important to remember that the problem is much bigger than just one man, but equally if you seek high office you must accept a higher burden of responsibility.
I don’t think anyone is trying to “co-opt” anyone else- just stating our cases. The quality of debate varies but is in my experience pretty high for a largely unmoderated online forum.
Regarding “war”, they started it and I have to defend myself.
As for “respect”, I think it depends what you mean. Hancock has the same rights as I do but I don’t need to think he’s acting in good faith if the evidence points elsewhere.
I understand what you are saying and agree up to a certain point.
But respect has to be earned and works two-ways.
The way Hancock has smeared and ridiculed anyone with a different view (just watch his clip in Parliament discussing the Great Barrington Declaration) and the tone of his WhatsApp messages shows a man who is unable to debate and has no self-doubt.
That is why I have no respect for this man.
You’d think he’d know the answer to “how do you stop the disaster from happening in the first place, how do you suppress the virus?” is “You can’t” by now wouldn’t you? It is not possible to prevent a virus spreading. You could, feasibly, lock the country completely and allow literally nobody onto these shores.
In order to do that you would have to know months in advance the virus was there and even then you’d be hoping. There is also the problem that there would be no end date to locking the country. You could not accept ships entering harbours, illegal immigrants gaily tipping up in their tens of thousands, no airplanes in or out. You’d have more people dying of starvation than the virus would have killed.
There is an idea: figure out how to stop the illegal immigrant virus first, small steps and all that.
I think we all knew the outcome of this non-enquiry as soon as the WHO decided to become Dr Blofeld. The recommendation will be to sign the country over to the WHO as fast as possible and to force everyone to have any jabs deemed “safe” by the WHO. We’ll all be carrying ID with our entire lives on them within 3 years and within 10 a World Bank will dole out our vouchers for the month as long as we are good little boys and girls.
Mostly correct although the target date is 2030.
I don’t believe that covid-19 was a respiratory illness. I believe it can lead to respiratory problems if not treated properly. I say that as an unvaccinated 63 year old chronic asthmatic who, along with my unvaccinated wife, apparently caught (PCR test) the ever so deadly Delta variant in 2021. I’ve had worse hangovers from a night out at the Top Rank Ballroom. For both of us, it was a mild illness all over in four days bar taste. Breathing not affected one jot.
This is a long story but I’ll cut it as short as I can. My younger brother caught pneumonia at the start of Easter 2022 (had it before) and was in a really bad way. I won’t name the hospital but he went in for a relatively straightforward problem with a known easy fix and before you know it he’s on a covid ward. He had to press them to find out what the plan was and it was Remdesivir. Despite enormous pressure from doctors he declined it in favour of traditional antibiotics (as previously). They were still pushing Remdesivir (all verbal) even after it was clear he was recovering rapidly on antibiotics.
He saw first-hand how people (all vaccinated) were coming into the ward quite upbeat and cheerful but accepting the covid protocol. These people were dying all around him. When another one was admitted, in his words “another poor …… wheeled into the slot of chance”. He discharged himself on early but the hospital refused to issue him with antibiotics. Fortunately we had a supply of them brought back from Thailand where you can buy them over the counter from pharmacies and he fully recovered at home with us. Last in (in worst condition) and first out (not in a wooden box).
Handcock knew full well that Covid was only dangerous to a small and easily identified proportion of the population.
That’s why it was downgraded to a Low Consequence Infectious Disease a week BEFORE the first lockdown …. because it had low mortality rates.
He lied, from the minute he opened his mouth.
Hancock couldn’t keep his **ck down but expected us to keep a lockdown. He’s finished is the takeaway from this fiasco.
Matt Hancock hard and fast with the truth.
I bet they never asked “If covid was so deadly why were you having an affair with someone else’s wife.”
Thursday 29th June 11am to 12pm
Yellow Freedom Boards
Junction A3095 Warfield Road &
Harvest Ride Warfield
Bracknell RG42 2QH
Has this man absolutely no capacity to read and understand the strong evidence against earlier and harsher measures? As for blaming the failures on preparations having been for a flu pandemic, the respiratory coronavirus required exactly the same ‘doctrine’ to be followed, not one made up on the hoof and conveyed via WhatsApp, based upon the CCP model.
Us mere mortals were confined to a lunatic asylum run by lunatics ably assisted by a band of ‘useful idiots’. The lunatics meanwhile appear to have been revelling in our distress and enjoying their new found power and celebrity status. Sadly they still appear to show no remorse and offer no meaningful apologies and we we are supposed to accept their weasel words bathed in hubris! Enough already!
Don’t forget Sweden which used a very light touch lockdown yet fared better than the UK.
Although Sweden were still wholly bound up in the Scamdemic even though they knew the re-branded ‘flu was just that – ‘flu. Same tune, slightly different notes.
FFS just lock the F…er up and throw the key away. This excuse for a human being is responsible for the deaths of thousands and misery of millions. He’s done untold damage to future generations and his arrogance knows no bounds. The best part of him dribbled down his mother’s leg.
That’s more like it.
Evil pieces of faeces. No wonder he raged at Sweden, as real world data shows clearly (+ Florida, and one of the Dakotas) that no Lockdown was just fine.
Why is Hancock not behind bars? The man is a clinical psychopath, as his glee in terrifying the nation demonstrated.
You can easily see the flaw in his thinking and attitude that lockdowns and other arbitrary measures, not based on any science, did not apply to him or any others of the ruling elites. He obviously did not think this applied to him as his promiscuity demonstrated nor to others who held party’s. International meetings of the elite rulers took place without precaution, unmasked while the servants were all masked. He is obviously saying this now trying to defend their destructive, unscientific actions.
Do they know that we know that this so-called COVID inquiry is a complete sham, simple ‘gesture politics’? If they did I wonder if they would try to prove us wrong by doing a ‘proper job’.
I for one can barely bring myself to read about what goes on there. Truly cringeworthy.
Apart from the fact that I don’t really understand Hancock’s doctrinal flaw argument the reason we are getting garbage like this is simple; the wrong questions are being asked.
Question 1: If a pandemic organism doesn’t kill people why do we need to lock down?
Question 2: Sweden did not lock down, and yet the death rate there was no worse than in the UK. Explain.
Question 3. If it does kill people, would it not be wise, as a first step, to work out why?
Question 4. If serious illness is a clinical issue, does it not make sense to have clinicians making the decisions?
Question 5: Why, when serious advice was offered at the beginning of 2020 (along these lines) why was it ignored?
I leave readers to answer for themselves, but if the answer given by Hancock to the last question was that there wasn’t any such advice I would brandish the letter(s) that I wrote in May 2020 and ask whether he has seen them, and if so why he never responded to them, and if he didn’t see them, who was responsible for hiding them from him. I personally offered my expertise; without wishing to boast it is substantial, and as I am retired I could have devoted much time to the matter. Indeed I have anyway; my blog/diary is around 250,000 words to date. As things have turned out my treatment regime and philosophy were correct.
Hancock’s whole evidence appears to be predicated on the assumption that a (the) pandemic will cause an unstoppable rise in deaths, somehow forgetting that if you apply the right treatment such a scenario is far from inevitable. What is the point of preventing transmission (which anyway is impossible) of you then sit back, throw your hands in the air and let those that do get sick die because you don’t know what to do.
I have offered my own evidence to the Inquiry and await a summons for cross-examination. I have other questions too…
So, Mr Midazolam Matt. I have been looking at midazolam prescriptions and comparing them with weekly deaths. In particular, I have looked at ‘excess’ midazolam prescriptions and excess weekly deaths.They correlate well.
Of course, a bit more detail, discussion and explanation is required, which have done in the Acrobat file on my Telegram Group: https://t.me/mikes_stuff/1178