On June 6th 2024 a hearing will be held before the Administrative Court of England and Wales whose results could fundamentally alter the course of constitutional development in the U.K. Depending which way the court rules, we will discover firstly whether the U.K.’s ‘deep state’ is going to become more, or less, powerful; and secondly whether international law is going to strengthen, or weaken, its grasp over our domestic constitutional arrangements. And, as a result, we will see held up for critical reflection two of the central themes of government in our times: a creeping managerialisation, which sees governing itself as a matter simply of the implementation of pre-conceived aims and objectives, and the globalisation of political reason (what I have elsewhere, borrowing from Phillip Cerny, called ‘raison du monde’).
Indefensibly, however – though in a manner entirely in keeping with the way in which such matters are nowadays covered in the media – essentially nobody has any idea that this hearing will happen at all, let alone what it is about, except for a few nerds and cranks. This post is partly my attempt to get the word out, for what good it will do.
The Rwanda Scheme
The case, FDA v Secretary of State for the Cabinet Office, is a dispute between the main trade union of Whitehall mandarins (senior civil servants in the U.K.) and the Government, over guidance which was issued by the Cabinet Office towards the end of April 2024. This guidance informed civil servants that they will not be in breach of the Civil Service Code if they ignore so-called ‘rule 39’ injunctive measures from the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), which are supposed to be indicated by the Court “in cases of imminent risk of irreparable harm to a Convention right”. Such measures are used, for instance, to issue a stay on a deportation or removal in a situation in which the Court is persuaded that this would result in serious risk of a rights violation; the Cabinet Office’s guidance essentially instructs civil servants that they are free ignore such measures. However, the FDA is arguing that the Cabinet Office’s guidance, is, in a word, wrong. In its view, if civil servants do ignore ‘rule 39’ measures, it will put them in breach of their duty in the Civil Service Code to “comply with the law and uphold the administration of justice”. And this means the guidance itself is unlawful and must be struck down.
This requires a little explanation and unpacking, not least because this litigation is simply another episode in what has descended into something of a shaggy dog story. To tell this story as briefly as I can, last year Parliament passed the Illegal Migration Act 2023, which is the legal framework for the Government’s so-called ‘Rwanda scheme’. The idea here is that asylum seekers who come to the U.K. will be removed to Rwanda to make their asylum applications there, and will remain in Rwanda if successful. This is to deter illegal migration, along the lines of Australia’s own apparently successful equivalent in Papua New Guinea, Nauru, and so on.
The Rwanda scheme, though, currently lies in abeyance. This is because an Iraqi man among the first batch of asylum seekers identified for removal was able to obtain an interim injunction from the ECtHR, via its ‘rule 39’ procedure, which required a stay of his removal – the plane in which he and six other asylum seekers were to be sent to Rwanda was, dramatically, stopped at the airport minutes before take-off. This gave the legal advisers of those on board time to work up a claim for judicial review of the process by which their clients’ removal decisions were made. And, sure enough, last year the Supreme Court ruled in AAA v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2023] UKSC 42 that, while the Rwanda scheme was not unlawful per se, the Government had not done enough to make sure that Rwanda was a ‘safe’ destination – not in the sense of being physically insecure, but in the sense that a person removed from the U.K. to Rwanda might end up then being sent from there back to his country of origin if his asylum application failed. This had the potential to expose asylum seekers to torture, imprisonment and so on, and was hence in contravention amongst other things of s. 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998, which requires public bodies such as the Home Office to act compatibly with ECHR rights (like the right not to be tortured).
The Government went away and scratched its head for a while, and eventually came back to propose a truly bizarre Bill – what is now the Safety of Rwanda (Immigration and Asylum) Act 2024 – designed specifically to deal with the decision in AAA. This piece of legislation stipulates that courts are to find Rwanda to be safe irrespective of whatever evidence is adduced (an extraordinary thing to happen in itself). And it also stipulates that if the ECtHR indicates ‘rule 39’ interim measures to prevent removal of a given asylum seeker, courts “must not have regard to” those measures. It is for a Government Minister, and a Government Minister alone, to decide on whether to comply. ‘Rule 39’ measures indicated by the ECtHR, in other words, are henceforth to be ignored in respect of the Rwanda scheme. This is, transparently, to prevent a repeat of what happened last time, and to ensure that when people are ordered to be removed to Rwanda the ECtHR cannot interfere.
“Complying with the law and upholding the administration of justice”
With the Act’s coming into force, the Cabinet Office duly issued guidance to civil servants in the Home Office (which is responsible for matters of immigration and asylum) instructing them, in essence, to behave as though the Act is what it is: law. They are to ignore the effect of ‘rule 39’ measures issued by the ECtHR and to process removals accordingly – unless, of course, the competent Minister instructs them otherwise. This is, after all, what the legislation requires.
The problem, though, is that pesky Civil Service Code. The relevant provision reads as follows (emphasis mine):
You must… comply with the law and uphold the administration of justice.
The FDA’s argument is that the Civil Service Code’s requirement to “comply with the law” has to include international law. And since in its view ‘rule 39’ measures issued by the ECtHR would constitute part of international law, Government guidance instructing civil servants in the Home Office to ignore such measures would have to itself be unlawful, since it would put civil servants in the position of being in breach of the Code. It would force them into a position of not being compliant with ‘the law’. And since the Code forms part of the employment relationship between civil servant and Government (as provided by s. 5 of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010), this would effectively mean requiring individual civil servants to breach their terms of service.
There are various rebuttals that could be issued to this, and no doubt will be issued. For instance, there is a strong argument to be made that ‘rule 39’ measures are not in fact law at all and that the ECHR does not actually authorise the ECtHR to issue them. (Richard Ekins set out the case for this in very eloquent and detailed form back in 2023 before the Illegal Migration Bill came into effect – his suggestion that “The Government should make a statement indicating that the U.K. does not accept that the ECHR authorises the Strasbourg Court to grant binding interim relief” can now, however, raise little but a bitter laugh.) And international law is itself quite clear that individual officials do not have personal liability for failures on the part of the state to fulfil international obligations – so it does not seem, to my eye, as though being required to ignore ‘rule 39’ measures would put any individual civil servant in the position of personally failing to comply with international law even if one were to accept that such measures are binding law at all.
But the really interesting aspect of this litigation is the wider context. No doubt civil servants should comply with the law, and no doubt this should be a rule governing their conduct. But regular readers will recall that a rule is never in itself determinate. What does ‘complying with the law’ mean? And, in particular, it seems apposite to ask: which law should civil servants comply with, if laws conflict with one another? Should it be international law, as the FDA asserts? Or should it be our domestic statute law, which in the form of the Safety of Rwanda Act 2024 is quite clear about the effect and import of ‘rule 39’ measures?
This question has its doctrinal aspects, of course. But, as we have seen, when courts deal with indeterminate rules, it is always likely that they will resort (consciously or otherwise) to extra-legal considerations in order to come up with an answer. And this case is pregnant with such considerations, as it taps into deep currents that move beneath the surface of our politico-legal life. In particular, it brings out two of the most pernicious features of modern government, and how they relate specifically to the status of the civil service and its relationship to both the public and Parliament – the increasing dominance of a technocratic, anti-democratic mindset within the organs of the State, and a hypertrophied sense that ‘the global’ must always and in every respect trump the national.
The first of these is the result of what, following the international legal theorist Martti Koskenniemi, I tend to call ‘managerialisation’ – which he describes as the tendency to see governing as merely a matter of the implementation of already existing and predetermined purposes and values. The managerial mindset is not concerned with debating the rights and wrongs of those purposes and values; it is only interested in the technical matter of how they are most efficiently realised. The result is a denial of both law and politics as such, and a lionisation of ‘expertise’ as the justification for governing. Legitimacy derives from a claim, basically, to know best, rather than to represent the people, a nation, and so on. And the consequence is an idealisation of ‘knowing best’ (rather than being representative) as the essence of government. (For the reasons why this has transpired, see posts here and here.)
The growth in the recalcitrance, independence and power of the civil service in the U.K. – mirrored, of course, throughout the world – is an obvious exemplar of this governing style. Rather than imagining themselves to exist simply to put into effect the policies of the elected Government, which represents the people, instead civil servants increasingly seem to think their job is to realise a particular set of values – generally those of the ‘new elite’ classes from whose ranks they generally spring. And hence there is a growing gulf between, on the one hand, the people who make up those classes (and who do not generally think very critically or sceptically about their own values) and, on the other hand, everybody else, when it comes to opinions about the proper role of civil servants. Are they there to serve? Or are they there to in some sense rule, since they purport to possess more of that quality of ‘knowing best’ than, say, the average voter or elected politician?
The second feature of modern government that I mentioned is the marked understanding that governance is itself something that happens globally or regionally rather than within the confines of the domestic state. Yes, borders exist, and yes, there are still such things as states and national governments, but any and all problems are to be treated as being in some sense transnational in scope – and requiring international organisations and international coordination to resolve. This can productively be thought of under the rubric of raison du monde – the tendency to imagine that we are moving inexorably toward a world-state or global Government, and to see everywhere justifications for its existence, from Covid to climate change to sustainable development to comprehensive sexuality education and so on.
The FDA’s case against the Cabinet Office brings these two tendencies – managerialisation and globalisation – to a concentrated focal point, for obvious reasons. The entire litigation seems to be motivated by an underlying reluctance on the part of Home Office civil servants to accept that their job is not to have opinions or beliefs, but to execute policy on behalf of the elected Government, which represents the people. Nobody seriously believes that these people are worried about being sacked for acting in breach of the Civil Service Code if they ignore ‘rule 39’ measures indicated by the ECtHR: why would the Government sack them for doing what it wants them to do? Their objection is transparently political. And it seems to be inspired by a vision of human rights as in some sense transcending the petty concerns of the nation state. This is in turn emblematic of an aesthetic preference for a globalised, transnational approach to matters of immigration and asylum, wherein supranational bodies like the ECtHR, to whom the truth has been revealed, foist it upon national governments to merely implement.
On the Civil Service and the Executive
I am therefore filled with a sense of foreboding about FDA v Secretary of State for the Cabinet Office. The position of the law is not totally clear – because if it was, the litigation would not have commenced. And this means that the decision of the Administrative Court lies open to extra-legal considerations. Put simply, the Court might decide to adopt a ‘small c’ conservative approach and show deference to the Government (whose guidance, in the end, really only instructs civil servants to abide by what is contained in the Safety of Rwanda Act). But it might very well be influenced by the kind of managerialist and internationalist preferences which are now so clearly dominant in the social classes within which judges are nowadays mostly situated. And in the latter circumstance the Court may well end up holding the Cabinet Office’s guidance to be unlawful.
This would be a huge embarrassment for the Government in the middle of a General Election campaign, of course (although I suppose there is a chance the judgment will not be handed down until after the election is over). But an awful lot more is at stake in this case than the electoral fortunes of the Tory party. Indeed, to take us back to the introduction to this post, nothing less than the path of constitutional development in the U.K. is up for grabs in the decision which the Court will ultimately hand down. This is because, first, it has the potential to radically alter the delicate balance of power within the executive itself. And it is because, second, it has the potential to make impossible the very exercising of executive power within the framework of Government.
First things first, then. I have written before about our failure, in the U.K., to properly conceptualise the constitutional role of the civil service. As I put it back in March:
[T]he civil service is itself part of the executive – it implements the decisions of Government on policy. Government must therefore be able to appoint the civil servants it wants, get rid of those it does not want, and determine their conditions of service. This is [because] civil servants, like every other element of the framework of British Government, must be answerable to somebody, and since under our existing constitutional arrangements this cannot be the legislature, the judiciary, or indeed the electorate, then it has to be those most well-equipped to exercise oversight – which is to say the Government.The regulation of the civil service, in other words, is political… And this of course means that the procedures by which that regulation takes place are also inherently political – and that [therefore] such procedures should be outside of the purview of the judiciary… [T]he regulation of the civil service must be political in the most elementary sense: it is the constitutional role of the electorate to eject Governments which abuse it, and therefore it is an usurpation of the electorate when the judiciary imposes its own view.
To put the matter more bluntly and straightforwardly than this: the Government must control the civil service within the U.K.’s constitutional arrangements, because that is the means by which our very democracy functions. Governments make policy, and it is civil servants who must implement it; this then allows the electorate to discern whether policy is good or bad, and vote accordingly. If civil servants do not implement policy – or if courts interfere with the way in which Government regulates the civil service – the signals break down and the electorate is left unclear as to whether problems are due to bad policy or bad civil servants. Voters, in a very real sense, are thereby made unsure about whom to vote for. This describes our current predicament very well, of course, but the problem will be made immeasurably worse if courts get into the habit of ruling guidance and instructions issued to civil servants unlawful on the grounds of failure to comply with some nebulous understanding of what ‘international law’ entails. The result of that can only be yet further muddying of the waters and yet further alienation of voters from what still purports to be British democracy.
The second concern is with the effect that a ruling in FDA’s favour will have on the very exercising of executive decision-making itself. If civil servants cannot be instructed to do anything that could be construed as being a violation of international law on the basis that the Civil Service Code requires them to “comply with the law”, then this is tantamount to extending to civil service unions a freestanding right to recourse to the courts whenever their members are called upon to do anything they don’t like. They will be able to simply cast around for a plausible argument that Government policy goes against customary international law, or some vaguely worded multilateral treaty provision, and that will be that – Government will be prohibited from requiring civil servants to implement the policy in question. The results of that can be readily imagined: complete indecisiveness and inactivity on the part of Government, for fear of litigation – except in regard to policies that it is well known that civil servants approve of. Does that sound like a recipe for a healthy relationship between Government and electorate, and a firm footing on which Government can approach the very serious problems which increasingly confront us, both domestically and abroad?
These two likely consequences of a judgment in FDA’s favour are linked, of course, in that they would work very favourably alongside one another in respect of the processes of managerialisation and globalisation of governance which I earlier identified. Both of those proceeses would be vastly strengthened were a situation to arise in which civil servants – imbued with a managerial ethos par excellence – could refuse to follow instructions on the basis of some perceived lack of consonance with the strictures of international law. And the further consequence of that would of course be a cementing into law of the forces which are already working so strongly to undermine the exercise of representative democracy – whereby the citizens of a country elect sovereign Governments – within the U.K.
It is to be hoped that this situation does not come to pass through the Court’s decision in FDA v Secretary of State for the Cabinet Office. But I would not be at all surprised if it did; it is in the water regardless, since the managerialisation and globalisation of our politics is currently showing no sign of abating. Whatever the judgment that is handed down, in other words, it is those phenomena to which we must attend, interrogate, evaluate – and overturn. But watch this space, regardless, for an analysis of the judgment when it becomes available.
Dr. David McGrogan is an Associate Professor of Law at Northumbria Law School. You can subscribe to his Substack – News From Uncibal – 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.
The corona madness industry is already huge and cemented in
Impossible to get rid of now
Medico fascist industrial complex
[COUGH]
What I’ve never understood about that photo is as it’s of the G7, there only being seven members of the group how come the photo shows nine people?
Ferguson does their maths.
let’s stop The corona madness industry
LONDON ANTI LOCKDOWN EVENTS https://www.standupx.info/
Sun, 20 Jun, 1pm – Streatham Common, SW16 5TF
Mon, 21 Jun, from 8am – Gather at Speaker’s Corner, Hyde Park
Mon, 21 Jun, from 12pm – Ready to march to Parliament from Speaker’s Corner
Mon, 21 June, 11am till late Parliament Square
Join any day, any time
https://t.me/M1L2BM7Parliament Square
A 167% rise of positive tests in Shropshire during the week the 4th to the 10th of June.
A massive Increase of 83.
I think that we can rest our case.
And no deaths, and a massive TWO hospital beds were occupied by “Covid patients”.
It’s The Apocalypse I tells ee..!!!
Would that be Jackfield, Ironbridge? Baron.
I used to walk there from Horsehay, Dawley many many years ago.
Happy if poor days.
You do realise that you get more positive test results if you do more tests?So do you see, the likelihood is there’s been more testing done? You do realise don’t you, that positive test results mean absolutely nothing if those positive results are all from asymptomatic people? The important numbers you should be raving about isn’t positive test results but rather the numbers of people admitted to hospital for life threatening symptoms due to Covid alone… not people who test positive for Covid and were knocked down by a bus, as an example. In fact more positive test results is actually a very good thing, it means people will become immune to the virus and don’t need a vax.
More positive test results can be achieved simply by doing more testing? Also positive test results mean absolutely nothing if those positive test results are people who are asymptomatic, which means they’re not sick and don’t spread the virus. You do understand that don’t you?
It’s not positive test results you need to be raving about. It’s how many people have been admitted into hospital with a positive Covid test result alone. Not people who were admitted with a positive test result and were run over by a bus say. The only true way of realising how serious this pandemic is, is to look at the total death toll numbers. And the average death toll numbers for 2020 are no greater than some years in the last decade. Yes that’s absolutely correct, THE DEATH TOLL IN 2020 IS NO GREATER THAN SOME YEARS IN THE LAST DECADE… that’s how serious this pandemic is!!
The more people tested positive of Covid 19 is a very good thing, it means more people are building up an immunity and don’t need to have a vax.
We all know what this is really for….
Convert them into “Soylent Green”!
But it will only be made from the vaccinated, so as to be safe. Yummy.
Yes they know what the vaccines are truly doing
I wish I didn’t agree with this comment.
I’ve seen a few of these tenders for similar things pop up over the last month. It’s really hard not to be a ‘conspiracy theorist’ sometimes.
Also there’s the alarm siren being tested for mobile phone networks, which together with these body storage facilities makes me wonder what disaster is being anticipated. Could it be the global cyber attack being touted by the WEF?!
Body Identification Tents tender from Police Scotland.
Well these deaths aren’t going to be from COVID-19, because everyone vulnerable to it has either already died or has immunity.
So this is either for lots of people dying from side effects of the vaccine or boosters in coming months, or they are working on another virus to “accidentally” leak from a lab.
I’m sure there will be another accidental virus or two, if only to encourage people to get their terminator shots.
Every day, things become an order of magnitude more surreal.
most overhyped ‘wave’ in the history of ‘pandemics’
lol!
Dig pit.
Fill with quicklime.
Chuck bodies in.
Sprinkle earth on top.
Job done.
1348 version.
PS. On second thoughts … Westminster … parliament … government …lynchings …
Naughty Annie.
Bliar has already trialled this when he slaughtered 11 million cattle in the last foot and mouth cock-up that he “arranged.”
He tried mass burnings but these were a disaster with black smoke wafting all over the country.
I think in the end it was lime pits.
He will have a manual for this no doubt.
One of Neil Ferguso’s earlier triumphs was Mad Cow Disease, that led to the unnecessary slaughter of all those poor livestock. The problem was that the “deadly prion” was believed to survive everything except high temperature incineration, and the UK had insufficient incinerator capacity to make this possible. The result was that MAFF/DEFRA paid a fortune for long-term storage of the poor victims’ bones until the sufficient additional incineration capacity was produced, at extortionate costs. (Friends of mine hired a large disused aircraft hangar in Lincolnshire for this purpose and earned a fortune from it.)
If Ferguson had any integrity, his conscience would have been so weighed down with guilt at the catastrophe he wrought – the extreme suffering of millions of helpless animals and the broken lives of thousands of powerless, weeping farmers, he would have quietly resigned and lived as obscure a life as possible, doing penance and praying for forgiveness.
Instead, this morally bankrupt ‘scientist’ stays in the public eye and in positions of importance while continuing to thrust his ‘models’ at a prime minister dumb and stupid enough to listen to him as though he was some kind of expert (which he blatantly isn’t).
Ferguson and Blair are two disgusting peas from the same rotten pod – both entirely without conscience, either unwilling or unable to accept culpability for their murderous actions, both continuing in the public eye, ignoring the condemnation they richly deserve. These creatures are the very personification of dangerous arrogance and both should dance, one day, in front of cheering crowds.
Bunkers come in very handy for lunatic regimes making last stands.
That’ll be the vaccinated getting hit by ADE when the next wild coronavirus hits..
All the time I find myself having to think previously unthinkable thoughts.
a. Our modelling friends have given the Government a model going four years forward which predicts doom will never end, needing equally never-ending spending and vaccines, Civil servants have saluted and set about procurement.
This is the optimistic take.
This then is partly PR, which will be confirmed when Susan Michie turns the first turf on a massive plague pit being dug in Kensington Gardens.
b. Looking at internal reports, the NHS has realised that deaths from cancer and other untreated conditions are going to rise so high in the next four years that space in private undertaker facilities will run out.
The CCP has given them some tips on how to manage this situation as quietly as possible, for example rationing the numbers who can turn up each day to collect ashes.
c. Looking at the real world data they now have, the English branch of the Faucist regime have realised that a massive immune over response in the vaccinated when they meet a wild virus is inevitable. They can and will blame this on a new variant and use it to increase power further, but meanwhile they’re gonna need a lot of body storage goin’ forward.
This is informally known amongst them as The Reverse Ferret.
As Toby Young might say: eek.
“when Susan Michie turns the first turf on a massive plague pit being dug in Kensington Gardens.”
as long as she jumps in when she’s finished I don’t mind
The problem for them remains the unvaccinated, who will effectively be an unofficial control group, and by refusing to die will make it all too obvious just WTF is going on. So they will try every trick under the sun to get the unvaxxed numbers as low as possible. This will inevitably turn very nasty, but there is no viable alternative to saying no repeatedly firmly and very loudly, if needs be.
Also, those who’ve had covid and recovered (like myself and all my family) need to research T-cell immunity so they can show they know the true facts about naturally-acquired immunity, and that they CANNOT get this virus a second time, nor any of its variants
I explained this to the caller who was badgering me and she finally said “fair enough!” and I’ve heard no more since.
Why?
JAB HORROR Man has leg amputated after suffering rare blood clot three weeks after first dose of AstraZeneca vaccine
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/15320182/man-leg-amputated-blood-clot-three-weeks-astrazeneca-vaccine/
Just a flesh wound.
He has already put himself on the waiting list for the booster.
Why do they add the “rare” bit? And in the article it seems they can’t write blood clot without adding “rare” (Well I know why psyops…). I have say the man doesn’t look particularly pleased with his rare blood clot.
Either this is pure grift, they expect people to be dropping like flies from ADE, or a bit of both.
May be needed for ADE
As an aside, I’m starting to prefer the Chinese communist regime to our own communist regime
To paraphrase Mohammed Ali
‘No Old Etonian ever cooked me no takeaway meal’
Surely our communist regime is just a subsidiary?
one thing that got overlooked-and I wish I’d kept the Evening Standard that day-was when it was announced Mar 2020 permission given to councils for funeral pyres
Last year a Channel 4 report declared that the “fires never stop burning” at crematoriums in Mexico, with videos of billowing black smoke, no context whatsoever. The Dollar Vigilante in Mexico went to investigate these crematoriums. Most were either closed or operating at much reduced capacity, with bored security staff at the gates.
This will be as useful as the emergency mortuaries commissions in March/April last year. The ones no one ever talks about.
Last year, Pembrokeshire County Council, amidst considerable publicity, had fifty extra graves dug to receive covviecorpses. There’s nothing like prompt and decisive action to control a pandemic.
Oh the humanity!
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/healthcare?areaType=nhstrust&areaName=Buckinghamshire%20Healthcare%20NHS%20Trust
Open up those emergency morgues
DO IT NOW!!!!!
I’m emptying the freezer so I have somewhere to store the bodies of my beloved family when the delta wave washes over Buckinghamshire. Amazing how many frozen mini sausage rolls accumulate at the bottom. That’s tea sorted
Did you find any distorted ice lollies?
hell yeth! that was brunch
also found a couple of relatives from the first wave – lol!
My relatives or yours?
(Aunt Maud has not not been answering her phone since March 2020)
could be anybody’s, I don’t recognise them. I just remember the trouble I had squeezing the wheelchair in. (its not a big freezer)
I put it down to lockdown madness and blame the government
Steve W – thank you so much for some much-needed laughter!!
There’s always a stray fish finger at the bottom of mine.
have you considered eating it? Or maybe you are and they are breeding?
Well…Mr H doesn’t balk at the idea. He often rounds up any fugitives and makes a sandwich out of them. Bit like what could happen to us, I suppose.
Bags of mixed veg seem to be breeding in ours.
Love that. Need a good laugh nowadays!
Just out of interest which travel list is Russia on?
Gold with spots on
Don’t even go there.
“We could have to vaccinate children to stop the spread of the Delta variant, virologist Dr Chris Smith says.”
another one for the gallows
lets see how those SAGE predictions are going
normally in science, if your model doesn’t agree with reality you throw away the model
in ‘build back better’ science, you just carry on with the same model and outlandishly claim your model has always been right and people who don’t accept that are probably some sort of right wing ‘denier’
They had build back better science in the Dark Ages
It didn’t do awfully well
The trouble with insisting 2+ 2= 5 is that your bridges collapse
They throw away the data and do more testing, and it STILL WONT CURVE FIT.
so they just say it’s DELAYED, next week the sky will fall.
Excess deaths from… the spike protein, which, as we now know, is cytotoxic?
This so called vaccine isn’t much cop is it? Thankfully I’m waiting for the vaccine against the Martian variant.
That one only attacks men. Women must fear the Venusian variant.
Another building block in the mind games
This will be to dispose of the criminals post Nuremberg 2
Ah yes, Westminster was the clue
Are they real? This is beyond a joke now.
Obviously not worrying anyone at Ascot, the politicians need to be shown the door now, its getting farcical
I wonder though if the advert is actually a plant, intended to be found and find its way to the media and spread fear?
This is exactly my thought now, so much Psyops going on. Is this designed to ramp up fear so more get injected?
It’s not for COVID. It’s for when skeptics go full Michael Douglas.
https://twitter.com/APhilosophae/status/1402434266970140676
Now what do we have here?
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/blackrock-vanguard-own-big-pharma-media/
Still think this about a virus?
What I have posted above may well be the smoking gun behind this entire hoax.
Thank for the housing story from the US. Here is the timber story from Europe
Clear cutting of local forests is leaving hill tops bald……….WHY?
Bark beetle
Like covid, another pestilence; the bark beetle, is being blamed in Germany but those of us who have lived in Germany for many years are well aware that there has been ‘forest die back’ for 10’s of years. What changed however in 2020 was new nation forestry strategies based upon modelling of carbon uptake by trees of different ages along side the dogma of the climate change science based, like covid outcomes, upon crystal ball predictions that led to the Paris Agreement.
So what we have is $cience providing the basis for policies to ultimately benefit the wealthy. In the case of Natural Capital it has been driven by the land owning classes and will force land values to high levels as all aspects of what the land (nature) provides us (so called ecosystem services) from ‘spiritual peace’ to ‘flood protection’ will be (valued) priced under these new land use policies. Any kind of value can be conjured up and assigned to a service. Reference: Schwartz, S. H. (2012). An Overview of the Schwartz Theory of Basic Values. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2, 1. Online: http://dx.doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1116
Novel beetle: The current infestation of European spruce bark beetles is said to have begun in 2012 but started growing significantly in mid-2018. (LULUCF Regulation) was adopted by the Council on 14 May 2018,
Or not novel;
“Rettet den Wald” Briefmarke der Deutschen Bundespost von 1985.
“Rescue the forests”: German postage stamp from 1985 Forest dieback is the term used to describe damage to forests that has occurred over large areas since around 1980. The area of distribution includes Central, Northern and Eastern Europe. It is characteristic that the damage symptoms appear independently of climate, location and silvicultural practices. Symptoms differ between species, regions and forest sites. A single triggering cause of forest dieback could not be identified. The complex effects of various air pollutants seem to be central. Recently, older stands and individual trees of numerous tree species have increasingly been dying, which is seen in connection with climate change.
2. Zero beetle: In the third quarter of 2018, the European lumber industry began introducing the damaged timber to the market. Healthy timber is also being logged in increasing quantities as countries have adopted harvesting policies to stifle the impacts and spread of bark beetle infestations and decrease forest density.
3. Who benefits?: Influx of supply has led EU prices to fall to record lows, making European exports highly competitive. China is the world’s largest market for logs, and the second largest importer of lumber, with growing demand for softwood products. China has welcomed the damaged European softwood. China’s demand for wood chips and wood pulp products is steadily increasing, which is likely a result of China’s recent import ban on wastepaper for recycling starting in 2018, thereby providing demand for the damaged European wood, which is still suitable for paper making.
4. Scientific dogma: Our most powerful weapon: Trees : 400+ tonnes carbon per hectare:
Trees are the ultimate carbon capture and storage machines. Like great carbon sinks, woods and forests absorb atmospheric carbon and lock it up for centuries. They do this through photosynthesis. The entire woodland ecosystem plays a huge role in locking up carbon, including the living wood, roots, leaves, deadwood, surrounding soils and its associated vegetation.That’s how much a young wood with mixed native species can lock up in trees, roots and soil.
5. Paris Agreement: 2016 A REGULATION ON THE INCLUSION OF GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS FROM LAND USE, LAND USE CHANGE AND FORESTRY (LULUCF) INTO THE 2030 CLIMATE AND ENERGY FRAMEWORK AROSE OUT OF THE PARIS AGREEMENT.
6. Germany Forest Strategy 2020: The Climate Action Plan of the Federal Government (BMUB 2016) includes a section on the sector land-use, land-use change and forestry which, inter alia, aims at “maintaining and improving the ability of forests to act as a sink.” The LULUCF sector should thereby contribute to the economy-wide guiding principle of becoming virtually carbon-neutral by mid-century. It links to the Forestry Strategy 2020 and encourages a sustainable management of forests, aiming at forests’ potential to take up and store CO2, and the closely-associated use of wood, permanent grassland conservation, protection of peatlands and potential of natural forest development to mitigate climate change. The Climate Action Plan contains a range of forestry- related measures aimed at reaching these targets.
7. Playing the wild land & biodiversity cards: Forests also play an important role in Germany’s National Strategy on Biological Diversity (2007). In the strategy it is envisioned that “forests in Germany have a high level of natural diversity and momentum in terms of their structure and species composition, and people are fascinated by their beauty. The number of natural and near-natural forest communities has increased significantly. Forests are sustainably managed in line with their ecological and social functions. The raw material wood obtained sustainably from the forests is highly valued.” The aims for the year 2020 are that “the conditions for typical biotic communities in forests (diversity in structure and momentum) have been further improved.
WHAT ARE THE PRACTICAL CONSEQUENCES OF LULUCF REGULATION FOR THE FOREST-BASED SECTOR?
Joint workshop of forest-based stakeholders (EUSTAFOR, EOS, CEPI and CEPF) on the practical consequences of the Regulation for the inclusion of Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF) within the 2030 EU Climate and Energy framework 25 September 2018, Tuscany Region Office in Brussels, Rond-point Robert Schuman 14, Brussels, Belgium
BACKGROUND:
The Regulation on the inclusion of greenhouse gas emissions and removals from land use, land use change and forestry (LULUCF) into the 2030 climate and energy framework (LULUCF Regulation) was adopted by the Council on 14 May 2018, following the European Parliament vote on 17 April 2018. The Regulation ensures implementation of political agreement that the land use sector, along with other sectors, contributes to the EU’s 2030 emission reduction target. It is also in line with the Paris Agreement, which points to the critical role of the land use sector in reaching the long-term climate mitigation objectives.
To support the Member States in complying with the LULUCF Regulation, a technical guidance document has been prepared by IIASA for DG Climate Action in July 2018. The aim of this document is to provide guidance for the Member States on the establishment of Forest Reference Levels (FRLs) and National Forestry Accounting Plans (NFAPs) as required by the LULUCF Regulation.
ias that when the vaccine is set to bump everyone off?
Exclusive: Asthma inhalers speed up Covid recovery by three days
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/06/19/asthma-inhalers-speed-covid-recovery-three-days/
Out of interest, how many asthmatics here had the number of inhalers they were allowed cut shortly before the ‘pandemic’? The claim being they were being used too much? Thus leaving them in short supply?
In the early days it was noticed that asthmatics were underrepresented amongst those dying or severely affected by COVID19. The opposite of what you might expect with a respiratory illness.
In any normal medical world, somebody would have investigated why this was the case.
But no. Vaccines vaccines vaccines.
Worth buying from an online pharmacy then, just in case.
What rubbish, what propaganda, what fear tactics, I could go on,,,,,,,,,,
Government sponsored scaremongering.
Keep drip feeding scary headlines, keep paying the 80% 80% of their wages to stay home.
Eventually, they reason, folks will capitulate to their vax passports.
its so easy to spend other people’s money.
Maybe we, the list or the site should apply. I’m sure Toby and the team could use the 6mil for something? Even if it’s only getting rid of the ‘donate’ banner.
It’s not one council overreacting. I’ve seen almost identical contracts in other large cities (Liverpool I think).
Some people have been warning for months that there’s no possible alternative interpretation than, at best, totalitarian tyranny. At worse, mass depopulation. The latter is by far the better fit to the observations.
I’ve little doubt that, even if you’ve watched any of my recent interviews, you’ll probably self censor & deny it. And so goes the end of the free human race.
Mike
Is this because they know the vaccines will cause carnage soon? Otherwise nothing else makes sense. More BS.
Scare tactics that they’ve tried before. Surely even the brainwashed are not buying this shit?
Why won’t this website allow me to post this reply below to Fingerache Philip? It’s not abusive, no swearing and is honest. So why does it keep getting removed? Clearing this website is corrupted and agenda driven to supply misinformation and lies.
More positive test results can be achieved simply by doing more testing? Also positive test results mean absolutely nothing if those positive test results are people who are asymptomatic, which means they’re not sick and don’t spread the virus. You do understand that don’t you?
It’s not positive test results you need to be raving about. It’s how many people have been admitted into hospital with a positive Covid test result alone. Not people who were admitted with a positive test result and were run over by a bus say. The only true way of realising how serious this pandemic is, is to look at the total death toll numbers. And the average death toll numbers for 2020 are no greater than some years in the last decade. Yes that’s absolutely correct, THE DEATH TOLL IN 2020 IS NO GREATER THAN SOME YEARS IN THE LAST DECADE… that’s how serious this pandemic is!!
In fact the more people tested positive of Covid 19 is a very good thing, it means more people are building up an immunity and don’t need to have a vax.