There follows a guest post by Chris Bullick, CEO of the Pull Agency, a creative branding agency and consultancy, on his recent survey, which found that the public are much less enthusiastic about brands supporting woke causes than the marketers pushing the agendas.
As a marketer who started my career at fast-moving consumer goods giant Procter & Gamble (Ariel, Fairy Liquid, Olay etc.) in the 80s, I have watched the saga around what is called ‘brand purpose’ unfold with weary amazement over the last decade or so. What I saw from the start were brand managers, typically just custodians of brands that others had built (they were standing on their predecessors’ shoulders) bringing their personal worldview, or even their politics to the brands they were advertising. This could never have happened back in the day, it would have been seen as laughably unprofessional. But in some major brand houses it has not only become the norm, but preached as best practice. What on earth has happened?
What is brand purpose? It used to simply mean what a brand was there for. You know: Hellmann’s Mayonnaise (Unilever), put on your salad; Gillette razors (P&G), give you a good shave. But then brand purpose got redefined. Mayonnaise? Fronting the war against food waste. Razors? Fronting the war against ‘toxic masculinity’ (no, don’t ask, women can’t be toxic).
The most notable proponent of brand purpose has been Alan Jope, who became CEO of Unilever in 2019. He has said that brands with ‘purpose’ increase sales twice as fast as those without. Jope capped his first year as CEO with a profit warning that wiped more than £8bn off Unilever’s market cap. Since then its market cap has fallen 25% while P&G, Nestle, and L’Oréal values have all increased around 50%.
Quick definition of ‘brand purpose’ to save time: Picking a woke, unrelated cause and using your brand’s marketing budget to promote it. Case in point: Ben & Jerry’s ice cream (yes you guessed it – Unilever). The causes it supports?
- LGBTQ+ equality
- Black Lives Matter
- Climate justice
- Refugees
- Female body confidence
Okay, you’ve probably got the idea.
Consumer research – ‘Is your brand too woke?’
It was this background of our own unease with the way marketers talked about ‘brand purpose’, the investing world’s attack on it, and marketers generally doubling down and defending the approach which made us think: Would it be possible to get a reading on what consumers think of brand purpose? Mindful of course that we were doubtful that real people – acting as ‘cognitive misers’ – actually thought about it at all.
As a consumer you may not have even noticed ‘brand purpose’ in action. But you might have noticed that ads are no longer funny, for instance. Research shows that over the last 10 years, the number of people who find ads ‘annoying’ has doubled to 50%. So what we wanted to know at the Pull Agency (a brand agency and consultancy) was: What do consumers think of ‘brand purpose’?
We decided to find out. But we instinctively knew that some of our marketing colleagues would be uneasy about us asking. So we ran the survey we had in mind past a few marketers.
“We advise strongly against it.”
“It could be seen as divisive – we’re not sure it’s a good idea.”
“It isn’t inclusive enough.” (No, we never understood this comment.)
The plan was to create a survey of what a fully representative panel of over 2,000 U.K. consumers thought about brands supporting ‘progressive’ causes. The survey itself didn’t actually use the W-word, and we had gone to great lengths to create a balanced range of answers to the questions. However, our fellow marketers thought we were on very dangerous ground which we were advised to stay off.
We went ahead with the consumer survey – and held our breath.
“Loved it.”
“Very good survey.”
“This has educational purpose.”
“It’s got me thinking.”
“Interesting topic and very relevant…”
“I am pleased to see this survey subject is being considered.”
Of all the agency and client research we have done, this research into consumer’s attitudes to brands that take a woke stance got the most free text comments: 20% of participants commented, and 25% of those comments were overtly positive feedback about the survey itself. Something strange was going on here. Marketers didn’t want us to ask the question, consumers said they were very happy we did.
In a sense I could stop there. This revealed perfectly the issue about brands and social purpose. As a guest panellist at our survey report launch event pointed out: marketers are WEIRD (from a Western, educated, industrial, rich and democratic elite) and consumers are not.
So in this article I will address, firstly, what did we find out about what consumers make of what marketers refer to as ‘brand purpose’? Secondly, why are today’s brand managers and their agencies playing with ‘purpose’ in this way?
Experienced researchers will warn you what to expect conducting surveys in a world of social media censoring, cancelling and rampant virtue signalling. More than ever before, consumers want to give the socially ‘correct’ answer, even in the anonymity of an online survey. Toby Young has written about this ‘pro-social bias’.
Andrew Tenzer (researcher for Reach Solutions, the U.K.’s largest news publisher) related at our survey launch event how he regularly asks for a show of hands for the question: “Given the choice, would you prefer to buy from sustainable suppliers?” Almost everyone puts their hands up. “How many have bought something from Amazon in the last month?” Almost everyone puts their hands up. Researchers face a massive challenge in that there is a huge (and I believe increasing) gap between what people say and what they do in respect to all the fashionable issues in particular.
Our consumer research into brand purpose – what did we learn?
68% of consumers are uneasy or unsure about brands supporting woke causes. This should give marketers pause for thought. But on the other hand, and I have to say I was shocked it was this high – it meant that 32% of respondents thought that brands should support as many of our offered list of causes as possible: climate change, BLM, LGBTQ+, equality, diversity and inclusion and female body confidence. At the other extreme, 8% said that they would actively avoid brands that support those causes. Of course, the question that is harder to answer is whether the 32% would go out of their way to purchase brands because of their support for social, woke or political causes. There is no evidence we know that suggests they would. Academic research suggests that the 8% are more likely to act on their sentiment than the 32%.
There are strong generational differences in attitude among sexes and generations. Women were nearly twice as much in favour of brands supporting social causes than men, and Gen Z were three times more in favour of it than Boomers. But again, we don’t know to what extent this translates to buying behaviour. It’s worth bearing in mind that many researchers like to suggest that younger generations have both a better moral framework than older people and are more likely to buy sustainable brands, without any evidence for either in terms of actual behaviour. However, you have to be careful about muddling generational effects with cohort effects. Young people have always been idealistic and cause-driven, but young people grow up.
Consumers’ trust in brands’ involvement with social causes is shaky. While on the one hand quite a high proportion of consumers say that they want brands to get involved with social (or woke) causes, 58% think that a lot of that involvement is insincere – woke-washing or green-washing. Demonstrating that perhaps it is easier to make enemies of consumers than friends through promoting social causes, 15% of consumers say they will avoid brands that they think are indulging in woke- or green- washing.
Consumers have had plenty of opportunity to say that they endorse brands supporting social causes in research over recent years, but to our knowledge this has never been tested against alternatives. Well, we did. Pro-social bias means that there is pressure on consumers to say they support fashionable causes. But what if they are given an alternative?
Then the picture changes quite rapidly. Can you imagine if Starbucks or Amazon or Ben & Jerry’s put these alternatives to their customers, what their answer might be?
58% of consumers would prefer that brands simply pay their taxes, treat people fairly and respect the environment – almost four times more than want brands to support woke causes.
We know marketers like supporting woke causes with ‘their’ brands; consumers appear far less enthusiastic.
60% of people don’t feel well represented in health & beauty ads; this percentage rises for white people and older men. 29% of people of BAME ethnicity described themselves as well-represented compared to only 19% of non-BAME. Contrary to a commonly expressed view within the marketing community that the industry needs to ‘do a lot more’ about diversity and inclusion, it looks as though it has in fact done enough (but perhaps clumsily) when it comes to representing ethnicity. Research in 2020 by the Creative Diversity Network based on 30,000 TV productions found that both ethnic and LBTQ+ minorities were represented at twice the population rate, and it was older people and the disabled that were the most under-represented.
Our research mirrored this finding. The unthinking addition of ethnic, and in particular mixed-race couples, is seen by consumers as an ‘easy win’ for lazy advertisers and contributing to the impression that advertising has ‘gone woke’. It was clear from our research and comments we received that people are simply looking for realistic representation of the reality of U.K. population diversity. Advertisers need to be more imaginative in dealing with this. The largest group in our research by far – 43% – chose the option that brands should simply “reflect the real users of the brand”.
The concept of ‘body positivity’ hasn’t been extended to men – 64% of men don’t feel personally well-represented in ads. It seems that the gender equality that so many brands want to be seen to support doesn’t work the other way round. The current practice of using imperfect female models in ads, according to many of our research participants, doesn’t yet seem to have been extended to men.
So what’s going on? From our findings you can deduce:
- Consumers want to ask questions about whether brands are too woke – marketers would rather no one did.
- Consumers are uneasy about brand support of woke causes – marketers aren’t.
- Consumers would prefer companies to pay their taxes, treat people fairly and respect the environment – marketers would prefer to tell you about their ‘brand purpose’.
- BAME consumers feel well represented, men and non-BAME consumers don’t. Marketers think that their industry ‘hasn’t done enough about diversity’.
- Consumers used to find ads entertaining. Marketers want to tell consumers how they should think.
Would it be fair to say that marketers are out of touch with the people they are marketing to? Yes. So let’s look at more of the evidence. Andrew Tenzer from Reach plc told our report launch event that marketers are WEIRD – that is from a Western, educated, industrial, rich and democratic elite. The idea of WEIRD was popularised by the leading social psychologist Jonathan Haidt in his book The Righteous Mind. Andrew expands this idea in his paper The Empathy Delusion, showing that marketers tend to think they have advanced levels of empathy and a superior moral framework. Unfortunately, research has disproved the former and of course no research supports the latter.
In addition, research shows that modern marketers self-identify to the Left politically of the modern mainstream, are (for instance) less proud of their country’s history and more likely to believe that women and men have identical roles in society. Translated into the language of the modern mainstream – marketers are woke, the mainstream isn’t. As a result, brand purpose “is highly seductive to our industry on a personal level”, Andrew explains.
My beef with all this is that this brand purpose charade is bad marketing and undermines the profession and the concept of effectiveness in marketing. Even back in my days at P&G, the company would occasionally be berated as the U.K.’s largest advertiser (nowadays that of course is the Government) for such ‘profligacy’. The company defended its large advertising budgets with the logic that good advertising – especially for good brands – was the most efficient way of matching buyers with goods and services. It created efficiencies in the economy. Modern marketers seem uninterested in such commercial logic. They see themselves as on a much higher moral mission. The result is ‘brand purpose’, which in reality is therefore just virtue signalling and an indulgence that they feel they deserve – it’s all about them. With the likes of Unilever’s Alan Jope egging them on, no wonder they feel unconstrained by thoughts about whether it actually builds their brands or sells their product.
So next time you see a brand clambering onto the latest woke cause, spare a thought for the poor marketers and their agencies. They just can’t help themselves, the poor dears.
You can download the full research report here.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Ukraine’s shock offensive has Russia in ‘disarray’, says the MOD
The Russians still don’t comprehend what is happening to them.
So, in response to popular demand:
Military Strategy for Dummies: The Land Component Lesson 0
Strategy covers, in broad terms, what we should do, how we should do it, and what we should do it with.
Military strategy encompasses, in broad terms, the tasks for the military, the operational doctrine they should pursue and the force posture they should develop and maintain.
Modern strategy deals with the use of military forces in peace as well as in war.
Example of Recommended Strategy for Russian Land Component:
‘If that is your desired endpoint, then I wouldn’t start from here’
‘……agitation for the reduction of US forces in Europe………could rise again if within the US it is thought or perceived, however fairly or unfairly, that Atlantic partners are not bearing an equitable burden………..
Erosion of the effectiveness of the Atlantic army will inevitably result in an erosion of political will, strategic flexibility, and freedom of action.’
‘As a bare minimum, it is the role of the Atlantic army to replace the strategic nuclear deterrent as the instrument with which the attack option is foreclosed to (Russia).
But that is a bare minimum. In a modern strategy the Atlantic army must provide for the West a sense of security to a degree that will encourage it to act and react in respect to global events with confidence. That forecloses to (Russia) the options of intimidation, blackmail, and political leverage.’
‘A stable nuclear balance makes imperative a stable conventional balance in Europe.
Without that stability there can be no political or military counter to expanding (Russian) influence in the Near East, South Asia, Africa, or in the great ocean basins upon which an interdependent world relies. Not the least of these ocean areas are the North Atlantic and North Pacific….’
De Witt Smith 1977
The age old strategy of attack and defence. But the political objectives of the Hundred Years’ War are forgotten.
Was Henry V poisoned by his wife, I wonder?
Did she consider Novichok or Polonium?
Yawn… What’s your point exactly…
It might be expected that the Russians comprehend that their army isn’t going to be in Paris by Christmas.
At least it has been acknowledged that this Kursk ‘incursion’ is for the purposes of Ukrainian negotiations with Russia. If this invasion isn’t an invasion, how can the Ukrainians still argue that their country has been invaded (when it obviously was) and not just suffered an ‘incursion’? What a tangled web etc etc.
It’s inconceivable that the Russians don’t comprehend the significance of a battle at Kursk. And one that features tanks. The historical battle is of such significance to the Russians that they named a nuclear submarine after it. Like Britain naming a battleship after the Battle of Ramillies.
Can it be comprehended that some UK-supplied weapons are authorised to be used inside Russian territory but others cannot?
I agree. There is a great deal that is incomprehensible, not least the complacency of this country and its (for the most part, hopelessly unreliable) allies in the face of rampant long term imperialist expansionism.
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/ukraines-kursk-offensive-marks-putins-third-major-humiliation-of-the-war/
The Kremlin has earmarked 3bn roubles (£26m) on a fortification line in the Kursk region, and a new territorial defence force was supposed to ward off the incursion.
Antipova recalled seeing a high number of border guards during her last visit to Sudzha in May but spoke bitterly of the community having to crowdfund for troops stationed there.
“Locals were bringing them supplies. I’m really annoyed that the government and the army keep saying the troops have all they need – while we had to chip in for drones and underwear.”
Regardless of how this plays out militarily, the political damage is done, and it is rooted in the nature of Russian politics.
Under Putin, the Russian state has become, in essence, an organized crime syndicate. Its internal logic, processes, incentive structure, and behavior resemble those of a mafia family.
And the most destabilizing moment for a crime syndicate is when the mafia boss looks weak.
The only imperialist expansionism is the number of your articles.
The Russians didn’t build massive defences in this rural, forested area because they thought Zelensky wouldn’t be daft enough to attack.
There are increasing numbers of views that the move by Ukraine will significantly shorten the war by the voluntary reduction in their fighting ability, and as such, is actually welcomed by the Russian military.
The bulk of the Ukrainians have based themselves just over the border and are conducting forays with combat tactical groups to various small villages for tourist photo-opportunities and then returning to base (well that’s the theory).
In the meantime, the Russians are happy taking “pot-shots” at the sitting ducks and their supply lines from a safe distance, with one or two close range skirmishes.
During ten days of the invasion of Kursk region, the Ukrainian losses are estimated to be more than 2,500 killed and more than 4,000 wounded and losses of military armour equally significant (I think the tank count is over 70 now, including at least one Challenger 2). There is also plenty of photo-evidence of mass surrenders.
Meanwhile Toretsk and Pokrovsk have had their defence forces depleted and are starved of munitions and supplies in order to feed the Kusrsk extravaganza. As a consequence they are both closely threatened.
What is this talk about Paris? Is this supposed to be serious?
In my opinion, the supply of weapons to be used against Russia is an act of war. We should be damn happy that Russia, or at least Putin, is so intelligent and restrained, because the British government is not.
We no longer have an empire and it is time we stopped believing we can police the world according to our views – and it is time the USA did the same.
‘As soon as the Russians had taken over the town, a local factory was turned into a detention and interrogation facility. At its peak of operations, up to 300 Ukrainians were held there. One Ukrainian who was interrogated there described the way he and other detainees were treated. “They attach clothespins to your ears,’’ he said. “Your hands are tied behind the chair.” He was able to escape; others were not so lucky. Many described beatings, and women were threatened with rape. One local resident, Kostia Tytarenko, who was 21 at the time, was abducted by the Russian military on a highway near Vovchansk in the summer of 2022 and taken to Russia.
In early 2024, when many Western commentators began to talk more insistently about the possibility of a cease-fire between Russia and Ukraine. There was even talk that Putin might be ready to make a deal. Independent journalists and analysts with contacts inside Russia made it clear that Putin was only trying to capitalize on a sense of Western war fatigue, encouraging voices in the West who were questioning continued support for Kyiv at a time when Ukraine was already short on military resources. Russia had no interest in a deal: at the start of the year, Russian generals were already bragging about a possible assault in Kharkiv in May, a plan that was ultimately carried out. It seems likely that the Kremlin was exploiting Western talk of negotiations to try to undermine Ukrainian morale.
Ukrainians have few illusions about how much has been lost, they also understand that now is not the time to negotiate. Although recent polling indicates that more Ukrainians are open to territorial concessions to end the war, these findings are less clear than they may appear. For one thing, even with growing numbers voicing such flexibility, they are still a minority of Ukrainians, and a large majority of the population maintains a high level of confidence in victory. For another, although more Ukrainians may agree today that fighting over a few miles of scorched earth is not that important, that doesn’t mean that more of them are prepared to give up important cities in the east, including those currently under Russian control.
Politically, the Kursk offensive serves another purpose. It allows Kyiv to address its partners from a position of strength and puts the growing debate about potential cease-fire negotiations in a different light. Few Western observers expected any significant Ukrainian offensive this summer, let alone one that could penetrate well into Russia. If nothing else, Kyiv has demonstrated that it is very much still in the fight, easing recent concerns about its staying power. Moreover, Ukrainian troops have shown that they are capable of planning and unleashing a surprise large-scale offensive in total secrecy despite the presence of drones and satellites on the battlefield that can see almost everything.
Militarily, Russia, its higher command incompetent, hopelessly divided, has no clue what Ukraine is up to.’
Nataliya Gumenyuk 16 August 2024
It is very kind of you to promote the Ukraine conflict with such conviction but the Ukrainians are the last people you are helping with your belligerent nonsense.
Reject 15 Minute Cities – latest leaflet to print at home and deliver to neighbours or forward to politicians, your new MP, your local vicar, online media and friends online.
Start a local campaign. We have over 200 leaflet ideas on the link on the leaflet.
This is just cringe, but there’s several of these videos of the police floating around. Should surprise precisely nobody though. They evidently love a bit of ”as-salaam alaykum”. And is it only me clocking the irony of the Pakistani community celebrating their Independence Day while living in the UK? The horror stories I read coming out of that godforsaken hellscape;
”The police shouldn’t be dancing or clowning around while on duty.
It doesn’t matter what the event is – they should be professional, approachable, and focused on public safety at all times.
All it does is undermine their authority and erodes respect. They’re a laughing stock.”
https://x.com/addicted2newz/status/1824571604371648935
Can anyone explain to me why it is the government that awards pay deals to ASLEF in a privatised industry?
Because in the real world, it’s all managed by the Treasury. Only some of the train operating companies are nominally private, but if, or when, they go bust their operations are taken over by the DfT, which is an operator of last resort (OLR).
Truly excellent point! I struggle to think how you could meaningfully and successfully privatise the track infrastructure – we tried it and that failed. Perhaps someone who thinks we can could explain how. The train operators are close to being regional monopolies with a few exceptions and because of the nature of railways I can’t see how you get round that. In theory there’s some incentive for them to run more efficiently to make more profit, but it doesn’t seem to work that well. Their prices are regulated and so are their costs (use of the infrastructure). I think we may as well cut out the middleman and nationalise them. Other suggestions/comments welcome! (I generally prefer free markets).
Since covid when the government pumped in millions (billions?) to keep the railways going when passenger numbers fell and revenue for the private companies dropped off a cliff, the government changed the contracts. Now because the private companies receive so much extra government cash, the contracts say that any significant spending must be approved by the DFT. So that is why the pay award is from the government. The private companies were not allowed to negotiate direct.
In the scenario you have described the private business would have to go to HMT with a request which would be considered and a decision made. In this case HMG seems to have dealt direct with the Union and instructed the business to spend the money.
I wonder if that corresponds with the law.
If I understand you correctly it’s an interesting point – is the pay rise (and subsequently higher NI and pension contributions) completely ringfenced from the private companies? Is there an impact on shareholders with these costs that have been imposed on them? I don’t know. I suppose it’s a bit like the government imposing increases to the minimum wage that private companies don’t get a say in.
I don’t think these are proper private businesses and the firms getting into this game know that very well.
How odd that a looter receives a substantial (and just) prison sentence while persistent shoplifters who might get away with merchandise of far greater value are seemingly of so low a priority for the authorities that in Middlesborough the police hand out crime numbers to shop owners for insurance purposes but otherwise do nothing else.
Yep, as western birth rates plummet, the UK needs to build a new city to find homes for 350,000 people. And our overlords do this whilst simultaneously telling us that anyone that opposes mass uncontrolled immigration is a reincarnation of Hitler. Go figure.
Now the fox is in the henhouse it cannot be stopped, and this is just the very beginning. It’s natural conclusion sees the English replaced by migrants – that’s not racist, that’s simple logic based on birth rates.
That would be a good sized city, but would accommodate less than 60% of net (legal) migration from the year 2022. So where are the other cities going to be?
Quite. This is just one of many planned. A mixture of scattering and grouping seems to be the plan.
Also, where on earth are these people now? They can’t all be hot bedding in sheds at the end of the garden, surely?
The list of things here – more bizarre & devoid of rational thought is getting a tad depressing. Don’t know how the DS team remain so upbeat.
Thanks all – my must-read morning schedule here just about covers an entire picture of the world gone mad..
On a more upbeat note, what’s your signature dish, if I may ask?
eggs – any way ……
She said “How you gonna like ’em, over medium or scrambled?”
You say “Anyway’s the only way”, be careful not to gamble
On a guy with a suitcase and a ticket getting out of here
It’s a tired bus station and an old pair of shoes
This ain’t nothing but an invitation to the blues
Spectacular response, tof … had to check the reference with Mr Google. Tom Waits – Invitation to the Blues
One of his best songs IMO – and that’s a high bar
Used to great effect at the opening of that splendid Nic Roeg film “Bad Timing”
I love an egg – anyway, I think you’re just being humble…
too kind – the egg is a wonderful thing – the variety of functions an egg can have in any dish are remarkable due to the makeup of ‘an egg’ – say proteins and fats.
I’m a good plain cook but can make a towering pavlova or a perfect souffle or hollandaise or custard or or or….
The perfect egg to poach – for example – comes freshly laid from a chicken that has been exposed to a diet of variety – it genuinely is pretty special.
My last meal? – 3 and a half minute boiled eggs and soldiers….white pepper and a touch of salt. I’m a simple soul.
“Data unearthed via the Freedom of Information Act shows how few days civil servants spend in the office, reports the Mail.”
Oh will you give over! FOI request – what % of DS articles and editorial activity, technical support work is done in an “office” vs. at home or wherever the team and contributors happen to be?
DS team is modest in size, consists of motivated people with skills the boss wants.
civil servants are multitudinous, couldn’t care less and most are semi skilled.
now do you understand.
Sounds like the issue is not WHERE they work but WHO they employ and what their incentives are.
“The eco-terrorists have a plan to storm Windsor Castle, reports the Independent.”
Much as I find them loathsome, Extinction Rebellion are not “terrorists”. They cause disruption and should be sanctioned as appropriate when protest is deliberately done to cause disruption, but they do not cause “terror”.
They cause terror. They are terrorists who seek to achieve their incoherent goals through disruption not the ballot box.
What have they done that has induced “terror” in anyone? Disruption and terror are not the same thing.
Any damage and disruption must be coverted into money and they should be made to pay every single penny of that back to society, these are generally rich brats with nothing else to do! Hit them were it hurts, in the wallet!
That could be an approach – but we’d need to go after whoever is funding them too
That may filter upwards eventually and even their paymasters might think twice
Sadly not going to happen
Not after those concerned bung £1m towards the gang now in government…
Indeed… take a step forward, Mr Vince…
“U.K. riots: Judge hands down longest jail sentences yet”
All we need now is a Gulag on the Falklands and government dissent will be obliterated!
“Attempts to appease strikers risks emboldening British unions and invites more chaos”
Welcome back to 1979!
Do we ever learn?
“First case of ultra-deadly mpox strain has hit Europe”
An African based disease entering Europe, who could have possibly brought that here?
“Ultra deadly”
Which propoganda organ is spouting that bollox?
It is NOT deadly.
Moneypox is a false flag intended to soften us up for the new deadly, deadly, deadly coronavirus due some time before Christmas.
I bet they’ve already planned a time and date!
Just received a couple of updates to the OED:
Keirpitulate : (Verb) When you pretend to negotiate but really just give your sponsors money.
Keirmunism : (Noun) A political philosophy in which you imprison people you don’t like.
https://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/news/regulation/doctors-to-take-legal-action-against-gmc-over-inaction-on-covid-vaccine-misinformation/
Doctors?
A group of “doctors?”
If the bloody GMC was worth anything it would strip this lot of their fitness to practice. No wonder they want to remain anonymous. Who the hell would trust one of these idiots for medical advice.
And to cap it all the ignorant lard arses are attempting to get others to pay for their legal action. Doctors, one hundred of them, who probably average at least £100k per annum cannot chip in as little as a thousand a piece. So not only are they medically illiterate they are hopeless with money? Or perhaps simply not willing to spend some of their own fraudulently acquired lucre.
Par for the course in this failed state.
https://dailysceptic.org/2024/08/17/almost-14000-people-are-seeking-compensation-saying-covid-vaccines-left-them-disabled/
This doesn’t look good for the above doctors does it?
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/extinction-rebellion-windsor-castle-plan-camp-leaked-zoom-call-b2596724.html
Just get on with it please and stop arsing about.
Some say:
1) Viruses do not exist
2) This monkeypox is actually cholera, which presents pox-like skin blisters that can rapidly cause sepsis and death, especially to immune-compromised people such as those practicing sodomy, who comprise the majority of African victims of this latest “monkeypox”. This sodomy is forced upon most African men in their “coming of age” rituals at puberty, kept secret from the women.
3) Do you remember that 1971 movie “The Music Lovers”, about the life of Russian composer Tchaikovsky, played by the late great Richard Chamberlain? At the end, he commits suicide by drinking water contaminated with cholera bacteria “Vibrio cholerae”, which gives him terrible skin blisters or “bullae”, developing into “necrotising fascitiis” all over his body, including his face. The only known treatment at the time was immersing the patient in scalding water to cleanse the open sores, which of course resulted in an agonising death. The point is that end-stage cholera presents the same bacterially-infected skin lesions as “monkeypox”.
“Man, 32, is first adult charged with higher punishable crime of riot”
Can someone please explain the difference between these two crimes?
“VIOLENT DISORDER, which means a person INTENDS to use or threaten violence, or is aware their conduct MAY be violent or threaten violence.”
“A person is guilty of RIOT if INTENDING to use violence, or being aware their conduct MAY be violent.”
So in both cases, you can be charged, convicted and thrown into prison for up to a decade, even WITHOUT ACTUALLY BEING VIOLENT???
Just “INTENDING” to be, according to the judge???
Unless you’re part of a Muslim Gang brandishing machetes and disembowelling daggers, while marching in English streets???
“Harry and Meghan’s VP host demanding billions from West for slavery”
Well, surely Harry & Meghan will be the first to hand over some of their £millions to their female Ethnic African Vice-President host in Columbia. Just to show willing, you know.