Freedom is ancient, despotism is modern.
Mme de Staël
The United Kingdom’s new Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer, has wasted no time in revealing his authoritarian nature. His first month in power has, to be sure, featured the worst spate of civil disorder to take place in the U.K. in many years, and, whatever the underlying causes, this undoubtedly required a police response. But the Prime Minister’s approach to this mini-crisis has been highly illustrative of his character. Almost his first meaningful action when the recent riots broke out was to give carte blanche – through executive fiat – to police forces throughout the country to use live facial recognition technology (which has just effectively been banned by the EU Parliament due to its intrusiveness) to engage in “preventative action” in restricting people’s movements. Now, we learn that Sir Keir has also set in train a review of the law regulating social media so as to permit the micromanagement of ‘legal but harmful’ speech online, which will likely see social media companies being required to remove content that apparatchiks deem to be ‘misinformation’. His instincts have as a result been revealed to point not towards understanding, or the solution of problems, but merely towards control. Faced with the first opportunity to exercise power, in other words, Starmer has found his knee uncontrollably jerking. And it has jerked in the direction of China.
Starmer, it is plain, is one of those socialists for whom the appeal of socialism lies not so much in its amelioration of poverty, but rather in its provision of a rationale for the imposition of a perfect order on society – the construction of a “great social machine”, as Sydney Webb once put it, within which every individual must be made to fit. There is the touch of the Javert about him; he is one of those men who, all things considered, prefers the stars, who “know [their] place in the sky”, to people, who have an irritating tendency to exhibit free will. There is also in the air around him a quality that C.S. Lewis called “Saturnocentric”, which Michael Ward summarised as a combination of the “astringent, stern, tough, unmerry, uncomfortable, unconciliatory, and serious”. It is no surprise at all that Starmer should once have made his living as England and Wales’s Director of Public Prosecutions: this is a man who would take to the political task of steering public policy regarding criminal prosecutions like a duck to water.
It should also be no surprise that Starmer was once a human rights lawyer. Some have found it difficult to square these two aspects of his character. Silkie Carlo, the prominent civil liberties campaigner, for instance, remarked in a recent interview concerning the use of live facial recognition how strange she found it that Sir Keir, who purportedly is a human rights advocate, would embrace a technology that seems almost designed to usher a Chinese total surveillance system into the U.K.
But this confusion is based on a complete misunderstanding of what human rights are all about. Human rights law long ago abandoned any residual loyalty it might have had to anything so laughably quaint as civil liberties. What human rights promises, indeed, is the exact opposite of civil liberties – namely, the most complete form of tyranny that can be imagined, achieved not in the form of anything so dramatic as individual dictatorship, but in the form of a system of total and continuous regulation of each and every human interaction in the name of perfect autonomy and equality. Most people do not have anything like an adequate conceptual framework, or even the terminology, to understand this – which is why people like Carlo go so badly wrong in their interpretation of the actions of the Keir Starmers of this world. But I will do my best to elucidate it for you here.
The first thing is to understand what is really meant by ‘liberalism’: that is, the ideology that holds that the purpose of political power, in the form of the State, is to liberate. Here, the important point to emphasise is that, while many people still have a vague notion in their heads that this means that the State should be small, it is of course a recipe for the biggest State that there could possibly be. The essence of liberalism is the construction of a relationship between the autonomous individual and the State which guarantees, and fosters, that autonomy, and this means that the State must intervene in society in literally every single point to ensure that all individuals maximally enjoy the exercising of their autonomy at any given moment. Any social institution, whether concrete or abstract, which might constrain individual autonomy – family, church, community, employer, business, social norm, cultural taboo – must be broken down insofar as it provides a constraint, with the result being that there is prima facie no barrier that may be permitted to exist anywhere against State action.
The important corollary of this is that since the State must maximise individual autonomy it must also maximise individual equality – in the sense that all individuals must at all times be made to enjoy perfect equilibrium of both opportunities and outcome. Liberation always gestures towards the absolute abolition and prohibition of hierarchy of any kind, because where hierarchies are found to exist, individual autonomy is in some sense or other inhibited for those who are lower in that hierarchy than higher in it. Liberal government must then always work to ensure that nobody can find himself in a position of superior status to anybody else. And liberalism, therefore, in its relentless drive to liberate, also constructs a relationship between the individual and the State in which the latter guarantees to the former that, in perpetuity, it will instantiate itself as a great moderating force in society to ensure that nobody is ever able to occupy a position of ‘privilege’ vis-à-vis anybody else.
The inconsistencies and self-contradictions in all of this are evident to anybody with two brain cells to rub together; it is definitionally impossible to reconcile autonomy and equality in practice, because, since everybody is different and has different sets of abilities, as soon as anybody exerts their autonomy in any meaningful sense it will inevitably produce inequalities. The fact that a free market necessarily produces big differentials in wealth is an obvious example of this.
But this irreconcilability is, as the kids say these days, a feature of liberalism, rather than a bug – it is the reason why there needs to be a liberal State at all. Communists (and this is one of the admittedly good things one can say about Marx and Engels) at least had a notion, as harebrained as it may have been, that there would one day not need to be a State, and that it would “wither away” once scarcity was in effect abolished. Liberalism has no such notion, because it posits the complete regulation by the State of all human interactions in perpetuity. And it needs to do this because it has to always make a plausible claim to be creating the conditions in which the irreconcilable imperatives of autonomy and equality can be somehow reconciled.
Liberals are therefore perfectly happy to accept trade-offs in this regard, because the making of trade-offs itself justifies the ongoing existence of liberal government. There must be somebody (John Rawls, Amartya Sen, Thomas Piketty, etc.) to declare to what extent inequalities in wealth are to be tolerated and on what basis, and to what extent redistribution should occur so as to optimise the relationship between autonomy and equality – and, naturally, a vast administrative State to fine tune that calibration from year to year, day to day, moment to moment. And this, of course, indicates the extent to which socialism and liberalism are tied together – and are really to be thought of as features of the same phenomenon, since liberalism will necessarily entail some degree of socialist redistribution and socialist redistribution will always necessarily take place on the basis of attempts to liberate the weak from economic dominance.
This all means that liberalism is to be understood to be quintessentially adjudicative in nature. The liberal State posits itself as a kind of omniscient and omnipotent referee, constantly umpiring a vast game conducted between millions upon millions of autonomous and equal individuals. It is a permanent, pervasive, and potent third party, always present in any given circumstance to interject so as to make one person a little more equal vis-à-vis some other person or persons, or to make one person a little more autonomous. One cannot escape from it, because escape is what it cannot permit – that would ruin the perfect system of optimisation which is always and everywhere to take place. And it has no principled limit, precisely because liberation itself has no logical limit – liberalism never has anywhere to go but onwards, downwards, and further in.
The result of this is a liberal authoritarianism which people do not really have the vocabulary to describe even as they sense that it is in motion and relentlessly advancing all the time. It has long gone past the point at which it could be rationally justified (there were formal inequalities that needed to be torn down; there were people in our societies who were living in de jure or de facto bondage) and has now shifted into fifth gear, such that we can properly begin to discern its pathologies and disastrous consequences. But the important point to re-emphasise is that ‘liberal authoritarianism’ is not an oxymoron; it is the inevitable playing out of the main predicate of liberalism itself, which is, to repeat, the repudiation of inequality, since equality is the necessary corollary of liberation conceived as the very purpose of government.
This makes human rights the perfect technology of liberal government, and of liberal political reason, because human rights law postulates the existence of a vast network of rights that drape themselves like a blanket over every feature of human existence and thereby always provide the justification for adjudication on the part of the State at any given moment. Everybody has the rights to freedom of association, to health, to education, to non-discrimination, to life, to freedom of expression, to privacy, to food, to housing, and so on and so forth – and the fact that these things cannot be made perfectly reconcilable with one another, and that anybody’s rights have to end where other peoples’ rights begin, allows there to spring into being an entire modulating framework designed to administer the necessary adjustments and compromise between competing rights claims – and it is in this practice that liberal government finds its justification and complete expression.
This happens judicially through the absurd conceit of ‘proportionality’ (whereby courts exercise purported oversight over the trade-offs authorities make between the protection of rights and the ‘public interest’). But ideally it happens internally within the institutions of government themselves (and also, of course, within private institutions), because the very existence of the permanent third party and its known motivations causes people to modulate their own conduct accordingly. Human rights therefore set in train, and legitimate, a total system of government based on the reconciliation and modulation of rights claims that could be made by anyone, against anyone else, at any time. It is the constitutionalisation, as it were, of Alexandre Kojève’s “‘instinct’ or ‘program’ regulating all individuals completely and finally” (as described by Kojève’s biographer, Jeff Love).
This connection between human rights and liberal authoritarianism is not widely understood, but is obvious when one thinks about the way human rights typically feature in our legal landscape – not as a way to restrain State power in general (think about how human rights activists completely vacated the scene during the Covid lockdown era) but as a way to determine who gets what from the State at a given point in time. Human rights do not limit State power per se, but only as a means of shaping the scope of executive decision-making so as to guide it towards liberation and equality – or to help decision-makers in an individual case find an appropriate reconciliation between those two imperatives, or between competing claims.
The appeal of this to somebody like Starmer, who likes everyone to fit nicely together into a grand, intricate and orderly social machine, is obvious – as is the idea that he might be the one who ultimately gets to press the buttons and pull the levers so as to fine-tune that machine to its absolutely perfect modulation. So, the fact that he had a career as a human rights lawyer before entering into politics is absolutely fitting, and there is nothing unexpected or self-contradictory about his apparent lurch towards authoritarianism when in office. Authoritarianism is entirely in keeping with the zealous adherence to human rights – it is just that we do not really not have a way of conceptualising the phenomenon of liberal authoritarianism as such, and therefore imagine the two things to be somehow contradictory when they are in fact closely linked.
In closing, it is worth mentioning something about how democracy fits into this picture. Starmer, like any good liberal authoritarian, does not like democracy. He does not like it in the narrow sense of people voting for things which government puts into effect (overseas readers may not know that he was one of the doughtiest champions of the attempt to overturn the 2016 EU referendum result), and he does not like it in the broad sense of public participation in politics. What he likes is operationalised bossiness, and that is really the stock-in-trade of liberal authoritarian practice at ground level: a supercilious demand for participation in the liberal project which also always imbues the subject with a vague feeling of shame for having failed to realise in advance what was expected of him.
This is why Starmer has taken to the task of suppression of ‘legal but harmful’ speech with such alacrity, and it is this that is likely to set the tone for his period in office. We are going to have to participate in realising the particular vision of autonomy and equality which Starmer’s government have in mind for us, and we are going to have to get used to being chided, in the manner of a bad dog who has made a mess in the kitchen, when we fall short of what is expected of us. We may be allowed to exert our right to freedom of expression in response – but only in the sense that it is modulated by the State-as-umpire, and reconciled with all of the other rights with which it might potentially conflict, and only therefore in such a way that the power of the liberal State over society will be extended, rather than curtailed. The State will get bigger in the economic sense (it always does under a Labour government). But it will also get bigger conceptually, and in its role with respect to the constant supervision of society. It will become both more liberal and more authoritarian – and my strong suspicion is that in five years’ time we will therefore have a much better handle on what liberal authoritarianism entails than we do at present.
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.
Grauniad reports school leaders calling for pupils to be “vaccinated”. Why? How many “Covid” deaths of healthy children? that number again – O.
Are children really more at risk by not being vaccinated? But I forgot, children’s interests are not a priority.
Dr Ros Jones, from HART:
“A responsibility of a society is that the adults look after their children and not the other way round.”
Someone please tell the Grauniad. And school leaders. And the government. And “SAGE”…
And 2/3rds of parents….
Yet still only 42K have signed her petition.
Apparently, many are not signing because it says don’t vaccinate until Phase II Trials are finished in 2023. They fail to appreciate the following.
1/ It is the only petition that’s been allowed.
2/ Most of the general public (including some MPs) are completely unaware that Trials are still ongoing.
3/ The trials are already showing that the vaccine is not safe for children.
If the petition is successful it could open up the whole conversation.
This is clearly coercion and I’m fairly sure it is illegal to coerce someone into taking something which has huge potential for harm. It is illegal to coerce someone to take a poison. The only way to do anything meaningful about this is to write to the teachers involved and the head teachers or any teacher who appears to be piling on the pressure and serve them with a “Notice Of Liability”. Doctors For Covid Ethics have written one of these to the EMA so this has obviously been checked by expensive lawyers and could easily be adapted. It relates to children too.
Notice of Liability for Harm and Death to Children Served on all Members of the European Parliament
https://doctors4covidethics.medium.com/notice-of-liability-for-harm-and-death-to-children-served-on-all-members-of-the-european-parliament-fe42ffdbf400
And Covid jabs are classified as a poison according to the Australian Government
Public Health Act 2016 (WA) – Instrument of Authorisation – Authorisation to Supply or Administer a Poison [SARS-COV-2 (COVID-19) VACCINE – Australian Defence Force] (No.2) 2021
https://www.wa.gov.au/government/publications/public-health-act-2016-wa-instrument-of-authorisation-authorisation-supply-or-administer-poison-sars-cov-2-covid-19-vaccine-australian-defence-force-no2-2021
It was Dr Roger Hodkinson who mentioned servving Notice of Liability to those promoting this crap. These people need to understand the gravity of what they are doing, this is a great way to do that. This interview with Dr Hodkinson is highly recommended.
Dr. Hodkinson Interview – COVID-19 Vaccines, Infertility & Spike Protein Dangers
https://odysee.com/@TLAVagabond:5/Dr-Hodkinson-Interview-COVID-19-Vaccines-Infertility-Spike-Protein-Dangers:9
Yes, in the same article some woman from the CDC saying she’s shocked how many children are being treated for covid, and on ventilators! She doesn’t say however if these are HEALTHY children rather than children with serious underlying conditions, which I suspect they are. Of course a bit of investigative journalism might help but why spoil a good bit of fear porn?
The sheep now think that a mask protects themselves and that a vaccine protects others. The labels say the exact opposite, of course, and both labels are at best a stretch, probably just fake news, possibly fake news with dangerous side effects.
You cannot reason with cult members.
And: as they believe these absurdities, they will commit atrocities against the unbelieving.
Children are now at totally unnecessary risk of Covid vaccine caused damage and death. That risk is totally unacceptable unless you are from government or are a government sponsored entity, Big Pharma or are called Bill Gates.
“Face coverings for wind instruments” – do you wear them at the back? two of them?
What’s the saying, doing the rounds at the moment? If you can smell a fart through a face mask, it’s not working…or something like that.
“why the reluctance to discuss natural immunity”? I should think because it goes against big pharma’s profiteering agenda. Like when they tried to have apricot kernels banned as there is no money for them in preventing cancer that way. Murdering villains.
Jenrick is the prick from central casting
What should be done with him is not printable here
If you want to know about the unspeakable horrors of ‘zero Covid’, read about Hellbourne (above). And reflect that this is most definitely for ever, because the magic snake oil is already available there and has made no difference. Nor
has the fact that nobody has died or even, so far as I can gather, been hospitalised.
Melbourne: Zero Deaths, only one hospitalisation (one 95 year-old lady, presumably with Covid not because of Covid, as we would expect) and just 60 or so cases in total in a population of six million (a ‘case’ count which is already being pared back statistically because of false positives). No end to this latest lockdown (which is costing the Australian economy $1 billion a day) is in sight because the contact-tracers keep losing the scent of rogue community ‘cases’. The pollies who have hitched their star to ‘Zero Covid’ have made a rod for their own back (and, more importantly, ours) in their fool’s errand to eliminate a virus that doesn’t even need eliminating, so innocuous is it at a population level.
Phil
South Australia
Can only sympathise, and hope that the zero morons over here don’t follow suit.
Dear Spanish Government
Thank you for your kind invitation to walk around in 30c wearing a face mask
Apologies, but I plan spend the summer drinking scrumpy in Blighty
Yours faithfully
A former customer
Seconded. Another former customer.
Thirded.
My parents live there, but me and my family won’t be getting involved in the collective psychosis.
They’re more than welcome to come over here for a break from the madness.
My second grand-child has just been born in Spain, where my son lives. I have sworn to have nothing to do with the Corona madness, for obvious reasons. Sad as it is for me and my son I won’t be visiting them while the madness continues. I will never forgive the bastards responsible for the destruction of our society.
Why isn’t Lord Sumption mounting a legal challenge? Surely he is one of the most qualified people to do this. He must know of a way to get something threatening to the agenda into action. Couldn’t he do something for free on behalf of the human race/himself/his family and friends to counter this tyranny? It really sickens me that these verminous people are getting away with such brazen criminality
There have already been several legal challenges, all of which have failed. I think there’s one still ongoing: https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/the-coronavirus-act-2020/
I’d be astonished if Sumption had not, behind the scenes, given advice to the Dolan case. Certainly the main thrust of the Dolan case was his position – that the 1984 Public Health Act did not grant general powers to detain whole populations, and that it was unconstitutional to remove basic freedoms by Statutory Instruments, and that instead the Civil Contigencies Act should have been used, which requires regular renewal by Parliament. The result would have been the same, but at least it would have been more explicit.
Sorry not good enough.The Dolan case was a pitiful effort. We need something far stronger than that. Personal criminal prosecutions for wrongdoing on a grand scale. Is this country really so far gone that the only effort to bring this tyranny to an end is some rich guy trying to protect his business interests? Is that it? Fucking shithole full of vacuous pricks.
Why is the Bournemouth local paper reporting an extension to lockdown?
https://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/19352202.exit-lockdown-reportedly-delayed-two-weeks-covid-cases-surge/
More falsified test results being used to keep us all in chains?
Maybe the Right Dishonourable Ellwood (although I’m warming to referring to him as simply “el traitor”) has leaked a story in return for being allowed to send in 15,000 heavily armed troops to start doing fraudulent and pointless PCR tests. El traitor can order the troops to invade, sorry, enter the city in a fleet of those lovely new tanks they’ve just spunked billions on that are useless because they cause those onboard to feel very ill, (presumably because they have so much wireless tech that the tanks end up doing the work of the enemy – when you don’t recognise that wireless can do harm because doing so could create all manner of legal issues regarding stupid and unimportant things like public health, the win at all costs attitude can backfire. 5G ….hint hint), then they can start injecting everyone with experimental bio-reactive agents so the people of Bournemouth can all start manufacturing loads of weaponised Wuhan spike protein in their own bodies, no-one can tell them where in the body exactly, but whatever, if you make spike protein in your brain or your heart, nevermind, that’s Covid, all that could happen is your body might attack these areas when you get another coronavirus which might finish you off, but we’re still learning about “the virus”, this is what has to be done to contain “the virus” and only a rabid swivel eyed anti vaxxer tin foil hatter nutjob conspiraloon granny slayer would object.
It’s definitely better to take orders from el traitor and apply the first do most harm formula, the old sledge hammer to crack a nut technique, because otherwise we would have to use safe, effective, licenced drugs which cost pennies and don’t endanger the health of those receiving them. What’s the point in using Nobel Prize winning drugs which doctors have successfully treated hundreds and thousands of Covid19 patients with? Why implement preventative measures for the tiny minority at risk, when you can get the Army in to start jabbing the whole of Bournemouth with experimental agents which the Australian government refers to as “POISON”, agents that could do anything from help to foster more dangeorus respiratory disease to cause sudden death? We’ve been locked down for 15 months or more, the governent is doing everything it can to save lives, and the virus might mutate, so we have to pull together and protect the British people who pay el traitor’s wages to make these things a reality with world-class leadership skills from Common Purpose. We must defeat the R number. We must defeat the virus. We must destrory the innate immune system of every Brit. Only victory matters now, we can do this, no-one will ever get the common cold again and it will all be worth it, at least until a new variant comes out, because covid.
Army’s new Ajax tanks make crew ill and can’t fire shells on the move
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/armys-new-ajax-tanks-make-crew-ill-and-cant-fire-shells-on-the-move-pn3wlh77v
Published Scientific Research on 5G, Small Cells Wireless and Health
https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/2230/html/
Haha only 12 hours ago I told a friend, wasn’t it funny how unbalanced had dropped off the news circuit, first his pharma shares and now links to fauci are coming to the surface, amazing.
This corrupt cadre of politicians, scientists and medical professionals are in too deep now. They cannot stop, because once they do, they will rightly be held responsible for the catastrophic damage they have directly caused. Therefore they will do whatever needs to be done, however insane and irrational, just to delay judgement. Hence they won’t stop, so, they have to be stopped.
Tyrants rely on fear and lies to prosper. Once people see through the lies, only the use of fear remains. Just don’t fall for the fear trap.
Well done JHB! She asks all the right questions and that slippery bastard Robert Jenrick refuses to answer any but by doing so actually does; the government have no intention of giving us out rights and freedoms back, ever.
So, we want everyone to be vaccinated so we can be free, but we are not sure vaccines work with this or other variants in which case we can’t be free. What tyrannical nonsense.
“A group of school leaders is calling for pupils to be vaccinated as a matter of priority, the Guardian reports”
These are not school ‘leaders’ – obviously. You notice the terms ‘Trust’ and Chief Executives’.
Such are the spawn of academies – self-serving appointees with pointy shoes and sharp suits who are in a money-making game that flowed automatically from the academy programme – a money-making game for government tarts, not about education.
AS to the ‘unions’. They, too are a disgrace to the term ‘education’, seemingly taken over by another group of classroom-shy chancers rather than professionals.
The gradual decline goes back over about three decades of increasingly corrupt and vacuous politicians driving the country. Professional associations of all sorts have been utterly useless against this latest assault – across the board.
I think there may have been a time when the school governing bodies and the Unions considered the well being of the pupils under their care but I fear those times are long gone. I certainly can’t remember them. However I can well remember being told a few years ago that one of the primary tools employed by the communist party was to get them while they’re young. Quite how true this was (or is) I don’t know but it is frightening how many people are not horrified by this but actually think it is a good idea. This current situation however is a little different in as much as it does not only involve indoctrination of the young and innocent but essentially their potential sacrifice as well.
The “vaccines” that are being promoted as “safe and effective” fail to meet either of these two definitions. Firstly, even the governing bodies that control the use of these drugs and are actively promoting them have only granted these drugs an “emergency use” classification (unless that has changed over the last few days. I suppose we should be grateful for small mercies). This is not the same as an approval rating. Unfortunately this fact is not only being masked by the “Safe and Effective” message we are currently being aggressively force fed by the main stream media (among others) but it implies the complete opposite.
Secondly even if these “vaccines” had been afforded the classification of “fully approved” I find it difficult to see how anyone could accept them as anything other than experimental. Even some of the most basic tests have as yet not only to finish but are still to be initiated. I shall for example suggest here that there are no results for the effect they might have on a full term pregnancy.
Thirdly and most significantly the yellow card reporting system shows some very worrying debilitating/deadly side effects. Although many of these could perhaps legitimately be passed of as complete coincidence there are sufficient numbers to warrant serious concern. Of significance here is the trend strongly suggesting that although the younger you are the less likely you are to suffer serious problems from the virus, you are in contrast at greater risk of serious adverse reactions to the “vaccines”. When these include heart problems, strokes, paralysis and autoimmune disorders to identify just a few, it starts to erode the argument that young people should be included in the mass vaccination program at all.
One point continually raised here is that many young people can be infected without showing symptoms and thus will continually be re-infecting those at greater risk.
There is however a mounting body of evidence leaning towards the contrary and showing that not only are asymptomatic carriers at little risk to anyone vaccinated or otherwise, due, among other things, to a smaller number of infectious particles but that this risk is reduced even further the younger you are. Something I noted that was, once again, being completely ignored, by one of the presenters I glimpsed briefly on breakfast television this morning as the vaccination program was being championed once again.
The question to be asked though is this. Who is at greater fault, those that impose these destructive measures upon our children, or those of us that allow them to do so completely unchallenged? If we sit back and say nothing this will continue past the point of no return. Once the kids have been injected with these agents those agents can’t then be taken out again. I find it difficult to believe anyone has the right to condemn 12 year olds (or anyone else for that Matter) to these experiments without their prior informed consent and purely for the “protection” of someone else. (I wonder if a new definition of informed consent will be dreamed up for twelve year olds.)
I’m terrified of the Planet Zog variant.
Evidently, it causes people to put a hood over their head and sit in a locked room repeating. “Jab food good! Tastes of SAGE! Gimme more jab. Believe in Great Leader. He always tell truth”
Careful! That jabs infectious you know. it sounds as if you might have been getting a little too close to somebody that’s been pricked.
This woman is by far and by streets ahead of any journalist out there, she is doing her job, asking questions, holding these blustering tyrants to account. She deserves some sort of prize and international recognition. The BBC, Telegraph, ITV, The Times and all the rest of the milksop creatures that call themselves Journalists could do much worse than learn from her.
Well done Julia and Thank you.
The Government is terrified of being tarnished with the accusation of opening up too early on the one hand and of being exposed for their blatant scare mongering on the other. Fortunately you can only manipulate figures for so long before it becomes obvious what is going on. Unfortunately there are now so many that have been terrified into submission there may not be enough left to recognise the obvious when it does finally comes out. Remember that a large proportion of the population are only ever exposed to main stream media and objective journalists like Julia are few and far between in this arena.
Dominic Sandbrook’s article in the Daily Mail isn’t quite what the headlines suggest. By his own admission he is not anti-mask or anti-lockdown and is basically saying we will have to suck it up.
I wonder if the Housing Secretary was watching Julia’s very expressive facial expressions as he was talking? Probably not.
Just been to the local tip with garden waste. Three vehicles drew up alongside me, occupants muzzled, I bleated loudly at them and they just looked at me perplexed . Used to do it quietly to myself but I am so fucked off with all this now I don’t care if I upset the sheeple, I don’t care if they come at me with machetes at least it would take the choice of continuing with this never-ending psychological torture out of my hands.
Having a really bad despairing day today.
“GPs have missed the opportunity to diagnose nearly 35,000 people suffering with dementia”
At least some demented people can be diagnosed, by all and sundry, from video or other remote methods. These include Johnson, Hancock, Gove, Ferguson and the rest of SAGE, plus the motley crew of “nudgers”, “modellers”, “epidemiologists”, unethical “doctors” and all the others who have hitched themselves to the honey bucket wagon.
I’m not sure that there is a Bedlam or prison camp big enough to hold them, but it looks as if Napier Barracks may be available. Just add dogs, towers, searchlights, razor wire and a judicious selection of firearms.
We will NOT get any freedoms back until we take them back, it’s not about a virus at all
Can anyone explain this to me from the newsweek article ? It could just be inaccurate.
“His unwitting accomplice was Donald Trump, who embraced the theory, turning what should have been a scientific question into a political one.”
https://www.newsweek.com/exclusive-how-amateur-sleuths-broke-wuhan-lab-story-embarrassed-media-1596958
If you look at the transcript then Trump directly states that he’s seen evidence its from the Wuhan lab so I don’t why newsweek call him an “accomplice”.
I am so fucking sick of the shit spouting out of the mouths of middle class, presumably “left wing” journalists. Today in the times is some leader with titled something like “until the vaccince divide is dealt with none of us is safe”. This is a piece of rhetoric gaining ground – I’ve heard many of my friends coming out with it. One of them said it to me the other day and I repled “unpack that for me will you – safe from what?” Are these people incapable of understanding the data which clearly shows that 99% of people are safe from this virus without vaccines. I am so tired of this now.