Gyms Are Essential Services
A group of 100 gym owners from across Wales have got together to tell the Welsh Government that it is wrong and harmful to shut gyms during the so-called “fire break” lockdown. They told Lockdown Sceptics:
As of 18.00 Friday we enter a 17 day “fire break” period where all but non-essential businesses will close across the entire country.
As a collective, we strongly believe that gyms are an essential service, and scientific evidence shows that active participation in exercise through establishments such as gyms relieves the strain on the NHS through the promotion of physical and mental wellbeing. In forcing the closure of gyms, the Welsh Government will be harming a large proportion of the Welsh population and we cannot stand by and allow that to happen.
Just as the Liverpudlian gym community fought (and won) against gym closures in its city, we are now going to do the same for our country. However, we want to take it a step further in getting gyms officially recognised as an essential service by the Government, as they have in other countries across Europe.
– According to ukactive, there were 22 million gym visits in England between July 25th and September 13th and they resulted in just 78 confirmed Covid cases
– The number of cases per 100,000 gym visits in this period was 0.34It is widely accepted that suicide rates amongst gym-aged males increased during the first lockdown and subsequently. Although we are awaiting official Government data on this, some reports suggest a 40% increase, which if true is a national tragedy. Gyms are not only important for the physical wellbeing of their members but also their mental wellbeing which is just as important given the well-publicised (and significant) lack of funding in the NHS for mental health issues.
Finally, on top of the multiple billions in savings the fitness industry provides the NHS, gyms provide employment to tens of thousands of people.
The first lockdown put a great strain on gyms. When we were allowed to reopen, we each had to spend thousands on measures to make gyms “Covid safe”. The low transmission rates reported from gyms mentioned above are testament to the incredible job that gym owners have done.
It is no exaggeration to say that this further “fire-break” will put the Welsh gym industry in the most perilous position it has ever been in, threatening the employment of thousands of staff and self-employed personal trainers.
We are an industry that relies on our customers becoming members, and member confidence is at an all-time low as they are reluctant to join a gym when it may be forced to close at any point. We need certainty for ourselves and for our members, and being classed as an essential service will go a long way towards that.
Snap surveys across Welsh gyms have shown that gym members also fully support our request to remain open as an essential service and have given us their full backing.
We have a Welsh Assembly Member, Neil McEvoy, who is willing to fight alongside us and as a collective we directly represent tens of thousands of members.
Please consider supporting their campaign through their funding page.
Churches Are Essential Too
Church leaders have written to the Welsh Assembly seeking urgent review of the ‘firebreak’ lockdown measures introduced last night that will ban churches in Wales from opening for three Sundays. Christian Concern has the details.
The pre-action letter argues that blanket restrictions imposed on Welsh churches which began on Friday October 23rd at 6pm will be both unlawful and unnecessary.
Furthermore, the letter states that: “The forced closure of churches by the state is an extreme interference with Article 9 rights. Such a far-reaching and large-scale intervention may only be justified by the most compelling scientific evidence of a resulting benefit to public health.”
The church leaders, who work in some of the most deprived areas of Wales and are from a range of denominations, acknowledge the seriousness of the COVID-19 pandemic, but argue that the imposition of appropriate anti-pandemic measures should be a matter for church rather than secular authorities.
The group state that they are genuinely open to a constructive dialogue with the Welsh Assembly, but warn that if matters are not addressed urgently they will seek a judicial review of the ban.
Leaders of English churches have also signed the letter, concerned that the forced closure of churches in Wales would set a precedent that England would follow.
On October 19th, Wales’s First Minister, Mark Drakeford, announced, without any parliamentary debate or scrutiny, that Wales would enter a two-week ‘firebreak’ Covid lockdown.
He said the measures were needed to relieve pressure on the health service and slow the spread of the virus in the country.
As part of the measures, he announced church doors will close for public worship other than for funerals or wedding ceremonies for three Sundays, although wedding receptions will not be allowed.
The measures follow a similar blanket ban on church services from the UK Government during the first wave of the pandemic, which saw a series of claims brought to the High Court against the Government.
UK churches faced tough restrictions, which even involved closing for private prayer.
Courts repeatedly warned that the limitations imposed by the secular Government upon the ancient liberties of the Church were potentially unlawful.
In response, the Secretary of State amended the Regulations in July to lift the legally enforceable ‘lockdown’ on the places of worship, which rendered the claims obsolete.
Mr Justice Swift observed at the time that the claims against the Government decision to close churches “raises significant issues”.
In May, a French court ruled that the French Government’s closure of churches was unlawful and a “seriously and manifestly illegal infringement” of religious rights, and ordered the ban to be lifted.
Read more here.
Stop Press: The Critic has a piece by Revd Matthew Roberts on “Why we’re fighting the Welsh lockdown“.
The Sanity of Crowds
Christian minister and Lockdown Sceptics reader Jamie Franklin (who runs the Irreverend podcast) has penned a moving reflection on the many losses of lockdown and the miserable new normal.
I remember as a boy going to watch Spurs at the old White Hart Lane. The feeling of walking up the concrete steps and into the open, the atmosphere tangible, tens of thousands with me, anticipating, hoping, smiling, united. I remember the strange smell of cigarette smoke, the unknown, elaborate obscenities, the sudden silence of the crowd as a chance opened up, the sound of myriad upon myriad plastic seats flapping shut as the faithful arose, eyes focused, breath stopped… the eruption, the euphoria when the ball hit the back of the net. I jumped for joy.
I remember fireworks upon the River Thames at the Millennium. I remember travelling back to my grandparents’ house on the tube and strangers playing charades together.
I remember going to watch musicals and pantomimes with my family, lots of Andrew Lloyd Webber: Cats, Joseph, Whistle Down the Wind to name some.
I remember school assemblies and chapel, singing the hymns in a funny way, making up different words, laughing with my friends when the chaplain spoke of “coveting thy neighbour’s ass”.
I remember Christmas at my grandparents’ house, not being able to sleep Christmas Eve, waiting to go home for lunch and presents as I sat through church on the special morning.
I remember going to Greece with a close friend. Teenagers, we went with his mum who couldn’t control us. We stalked around the island with another couple of lads we met there. On the last night I accidentally got paralytic on Ouzo.
I remember going to Earl’s Court to see Metallica and Iron Maiden. Amazing.
I remember going to university for the first time, the uncertainty and enjoyment of meeting so many new people, the struggle to understand myself in this new environment.
I remember going to church by my own choice as an adult. I remember the feeling of joy as I sang God’s praises with a few hundred other people and really meant it…
I’m told that this is all over now. I’m told that none of it is safe. I’m told that the kindest thing to do is for us all to stay in our houses forever. In order for my children to be safe, they must never hug their grandparents. Old folks in hospital mustn’t see their kids before they die. I’m told by Tobias Ellwood MP that I will need to be vaccinated before I can return to normal life, and, even then, that I must carry a passport in order to go anywhere. I’m told by the Prime Minister that I will need to test myself for a virus every morning before I go outside. I’m told that I must allow the government to track my every movement and interaction.
Let’s hope they don’t make this stunted existence last too long. Worth reading in full.
New Study Claims Lockdowns Work
The Lancet has published a new study by Dr You Li and colleagues purporting to show that various non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) have a significant impact on reducing infections. From the conclusion:
To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first to assess the temporal association between changing the status of a range of NPIs and the transmission of SARS-CoV-2, as measured by R, for all countries for which data were available. On the basis of the empirical data from 131 countries, we found that individual NPIs, including school closure, workplace closure, public events bans, requirements to stay at home, and internal movement limits, were associated with reductions in R of 3–24% on day 28 after their introduction, compared with the day before their introduction. Reopening schools, lifting bans on public events, lifting bans on public gatherings of more than 10 people, lifting requirements to stay at home, and lifting internal movement limits were associated with increases in R of 11–25% on day 28 after the relaxation. The effects of introducing and lifting NPIs were not immediate; it took around one week following the introduction of an NPI to observe 60% of the maximum reduction in R and even longer (almost three weeks) following the relaxation of an NPI to observe 60% of the maximum increase in R.
Our analysis suggests that, in the context of a resurgence of SARS-CoV-2, a control strategy of banning public events and public gatherings of more than 10 people would be associated with a reduction in R of 6% on day seven, 13% on day 14, and 29% on day 28; if this strategy also included closing workplaces, the overall reduction in R would be 16% on day seven, 22% on day 14, and 38% on day 28. These findings provide additional evidence that can inform policy makers’ decisions on the timing of introducing and lifting different NPIs.
The study has numerous problems, many of which the authors themselves list in the discussion. They claim, for instance, that closing schools and banning public events have the largest impact on infection rates. But they acknowledge that these were usually the first interventions brought in and that the large impact may just reflect that earliness. In terms of increases in infection after lifting restrictions, they acknowledge that they don’t allow for increases in testing, yet the early summer (when most of the restrictions were being lifted) was when testing was being ramped up worldwide, so much of the increase must be attributed to that. They admit they don’t take the seasonality of the virus into account, and appear to defend this by citing a model that claims to show that temperature and humidity don’t make any difference to transmission, despite it now being clear that the virus faded in many places partly due to the onset of summer and is seeing a seasonal resurgence in the autumn. They also claim schools are major drivers of infection, citing one study about the high viral load in five year-olds, but ignoring all the studies that show closing schools made little or no difference.
They acknowledge that there were varying delays in the interventions having an effect, with a median of eight days to reach 60% of the effect, which seems a very long delay for an impact that should really be immediate (their methodology takes into account the lag between infection and reporting tests results). They argue this is likely to be a result of behavioural inertia, which they say is backed up by Google mobility data, but don’t go into detail. It’s hard to see how behavioural inertia could explain a delay in the impact of the closure of schools, which is by nature an immediate and universal behavioural change. Likewise, if public events are banned then they are banned. Why then the delay and variation?
Crucially, there is no sign they have considered how much of the decline in R would have happened anyway, due to natural epidemic decline (herd immunity). As often happens with these studies, one gets a sense that they are assuming their conclusion (that NPIs work) and thus don’t give proper consideration to the possibility that the reduction in R is unrelated to the interventions.
In some ways, though, this study is welcome to sceptics because it concedes that most interventions have no clear impact, and even for those that do the effect is very limited. If lockdowns don’t really prevent transmission, and vaccines likewise, then what argument is left against the strategy of protecting vulnerable people as best we can while otherwise getting back to normal? None that I can see.
Is Public Opinion Turning?
There’s an encouraging piece in the Daily Mail today suggesting public opinion is beginning to shift.
Dramatic evidence of a growing revolt against the coronavirus lockdowns emerged last night.
The public think the rules won’t work, they will break the law if necessary to see their loved ones and believe it is time to “get Britain back to normal”.
These are among the key findings from focus groups that suggest traditional opinion polls have failed to spot a decisive change in attitudes toward the pandemic.
One leading pollster believes Britain could be witnessing a repeat of what happened in the 2015 election and the EU referendum.
Opinion polls forecast Labour’s Ed Miliband would be prime minister and that Brexit would be rejected: focus groups indicated the opposite and were proved right each time.
Since the start of the pandemic most polls have suggested voters support lockdowns and, if anything, want the Government to impose even more stringent curbs.
Some have argued this is because furloughed workers have been able to stay at home on 80 per cent of their normal wages thanks to taxpayer funds.
Many Tory MPs opposed to Boris Johnson’s three-tier lockdown system claim their stance is backed by many of their constituents.
The Daily Mail listened in to one of the focus groups, typical of several that have been conducted recently, and it echoed the MPs’ views.
Carried out last Friday, and comprising a cross-section of society, both Tory and Labour, in London, Birmingham and Liverpool, it appears to show voters have lost faith in lockdowns and are no longer prepared to obey all the rules.
They also think the second wave of the virus will be less dangerous, are increasingly worried about the damage to jobs and the economy.
Meanwhile many will refuse a coronavirus vaccine for fear of side effects and there is continuing fury over rule breakers such as the Prime Minister’s chief of staff Dominic Cummings.
The pollster who conducted these focus groups, James Johnson, has written up his findings for the paper.
Stop Press: Only one in 10 told to self-isolate remain at home for two weeks, according to SAGE document.
Lockdown Logic
We’re publishing today a piece by a philosopher who analyses the so-called logic of the lockdown zealots and finds it wanting. Here’s an excerpt.
What, then, is the status of SAGE’s (or the BBC’s, or the general public’s) conviction that a second COVID-19 wave is imminent or already under way? The belief that the NHS is under threat; the conviction that in the absence of further restrictions on personal liberties and economic activity, we risk hundreds of thousands of excess deaths? Clearly, it’s a blik: these are expressions of an unshakeable faith in the most pessimistic outcomes – one that is retained and allowed to govern argument, attitudes in social life, and decision-making, regardless of (almost) no matter what evidence to the contrary. The virus is out to get us; and any evidence that suggests otherwise just shows how cunning it is, and how cautious we need to be to protect ourselves against its malevolence. These articles of faith are ‘meaningful’ to those committed to them, in that they affect the way they live their lives; and they are retained regardless of all rational considerations that count against them.
Some may be inclined to the view that it is no real accident that belief in the ‘second wave’ (or, perhaps, second coming)’should resemble religious belief. They may suggest that it accords frighteningly well with certain other aspects of the phenomenon as we experience it: the cult of supposed experts – the scientifically-informed ‘priesthood’ controlling and interpreting the models, whose identities were kept secret for so long (as a guard, presumably, against some form of jealous magic that might undermine, them were their identities publicised). For me, that’s going a bit too far: my view is simply that these people can’t think straight.
Worth reading in full.
Maureen From Barnsley on Good Morning Britain
An 83 year-old woman from Barnsley has done more to rally support for the sceptics’ cause than six months of unrelenting toil on Lockdown Sceptics. But we love her. Here she is socking it to Dr Sarah Jarvis on Good Morning Britain.
Postcard From Albania
Lifestyle writer and Lockdown Sceptics reader Robert Jackman has sent us a postcard from Albania. Sounds like they’ve got the right idea.
There’s a depressing rule of thumb at the moment in Europe that it’s typically the countries on the other side of the Berlin Wall that are the freer ones these days. And a visit to Albania – once the last Communist dictatorship in Europe – proves no different.
Of course, Albania does have some coronavirus restrictions. Masks are compulsory in most indoor spaces (restaurants and bars excluded), but the take-up is far patchier than in Britain. The collective mentality seems to be that, whatever the law might say, masks remain a matter of personal choice.
In a short weekend break, I spot the occasional social distancing sign in a window but nothing more than that. There are no restrictions on how many people can enter a shop or sit on a bus. No martials policing the streets. No irritating one-way systems or taped-over seating.
I suspect there are several factors that contribute to the lack of suffocating restrictions we’ve become used to. As with most poorer countries in Europe, customer-facing businesses in Albania tend to be small and independent, often run directly by owners.
From serving customers to sweeping the floors at closing time, the average Alabanian coffee shop owner has enough to worry about without fussing about whether customers are wearing masks. They’re also much less likely to want to chase away custom. Nor do they receive orders from a nervous head office intent on minimising potential liability.
You get the sense that – even putting the virus aside – rules and regulations carry less weight here than they do in the more litigious and bureaucratic West. Cigarettes, for example, are available virtually everywhere and restaurants seem to have the automatic right to let customers smoke – even in a shopping mall. That lack of oversight might not always be a good thing, but I’d happily take it over armed-police shutting down gyms.
When chatting to a bar owner later, I find out there are some other rules in place. It’s just as well he mentions them, as I’d have never noticed otherwise. One of the new rules, he says, is that pubs and bars are banned from playing music after 8pm. Does he follow the rule I ask? Of course not, he laughs. In three months, he’s received the occasional ticking off from passing police officers, but even then probably only to cover their own backs. The idea that he could be fined or shut down seems alien to him.
Come midnight, the music is louder than when I arrived. At one point, I even hear the sweary refrains of Rage Against The Machine’s “Killing in the Name Of (‘F**k you I won’t do what you tell me!‘)”. I suspect it isn’t a deliberate act of defiance, but it’s music to the ears of a slightly tipsy lockdown sceptic.
So how is it all working out for Albania? Their daily coronavirus deaths are still in the single figures but have been steadily ticking away for months now. In typically Balkan style, they have effectively arrived at the Swedish model (well, plus masks) by default rather than design. If this is what ‘letting the virus rip’ looks like, we probably shouldn’t be too worried.
There is one final factor that I imagine contributes to the country’s aloofness in the face of the virus. As anyone who’s been to the Balkans knows, it’s common to see death notices printed on A4 paper and posted on special notice boards around town. While the aim is to let people know about upcoming funerals, seeing those black and white photos also reminds you that death is always out there. Perhaps it helps maintain perspective – and keep away the paralysing fear that has gripped so much of western Europe?
After all, I can’t help notice that, even in the grip of a pandemic, the wall of remembrance is hardly overcrowded. If Neil Ferguson was right, there would be paper blowing everywhere.
Round-Up
- “Are we really seeing a second wave?” – Dr Waqar Rashid in the Spectator points out there’s nothing unusual so far in terms of hospital admissions and deaths about the so-called second wave
- “Nicola Sturgeon warns Scotland her new FIVE Tier lockdown will see some pubs and businesses close permanently and could cost people their jobs – and warns her Government could run out of money unless Boris and Rishi Sunak hand over more Westminster cash” – Report in the Mail on Nic Sturge-On’s latest
viruseconomy destroying wheeze - “More proof Britain’s COVID-19 outbreak is slowing down? SAGE believes R rate has dropped slightly and ONS estimates 35,200 people in England got infected every day last week – meaning speed of growth has shrunk again” – The Mail mines the latest ONS survey data and finds further evidence of infection slowdown
- “Demonising of virus doctors who dare to tell the truth” – Kathy Gyngell in Conservative Woman on the plight of America’s Frontline Doctors and the severe censorship they have experienced
- “The slow media catch-up” – Michael Curzon in Bournbrook on how late much of the media are to the sceptic party
- “How the MEAN psychologists induced us to comply with coronavirus restrictions” – Psychologist Dr Gary Sidley on the insidious role played by Government psychologists in the Behavioural Information Team in deploying psychological techniques to induce compliance
- “Open Letter To the Irish Government” – A group of doctors in Ireland appeal to the Taoiseach to wake up to the folly of lockdowns with a good summary of the sceptical scientific case
- “Flu deaths fall as ONS says many who were vulnerable may have died in first Covid wave” – The Telegraph‘s Sarah Knapton on why flu deaths may be down, underlining once again the already short life expectancy of many Covid victims
- “Government fears working from home is hitting UK economy hard” – Turns out it’s not all so wonderful after all, from the Telegraph
- “Alberta to pilot COVID-19 testing at border that could shorten quarantine time” – Report from CBC on the introduction of airport testing in Canada
- “Mark Drakeford has declared war on the economy” – Matthew Lynn in the Spectator on the naked anti-free market agenda of the Welsh lockdown
- “If you’re pinning your hopes on a Covid vaccine, here’s a dose of realism” – David Salisbury in the Guardian delivers the truth that even a vaccine won’t allow a return to normal. But it’s the Guardian, so the conclusion is not ‘let’s learn from Sweden’ but ‘let’s lock down forever’
- “Reasons to believe COVID-19 pandemic will ease next spring, says health expert” – The Irish Times reports on the advice of Professor Devi Sridhar,
public healthsocial scientist at Edinburgh University, to a summer school that “if we can get to March” governments will have a chance of using a vaccine and rapid testing to “form a game plan with this virus” - “Why is coronavirus so deadly?” – Ridiculous piece of fear porn from James Gallagher on the BBC website, including the claim (from a seemingly uninformed immunologist) that “this is a new one, so we don’t think there’s much prior immunity there”. Eh?
- “Half a million Americans could die of Covid by end of February, study forecasts” – More doom-modelling from the University of Washington in the Guardian. That would make the “second wave” more than twice as big as the first, despite now widespread immunity. Maybe someone should tell New York, which is currently seeing no rise at all
- “Why I’m not surprised Gap is closing its UK stores” – The Telegraph‘s Fashion Editor says the store’s problems predate the pandemic. But even so… Gap?!?
- “A Nothingburger that Changed the World” – Good piece by Paul Collits for the Freedoms Project
Theme Tunes Suggested by Readers
Wales themed today: “Fear Of A Welsh Planet” by Goldie Lookin Chain and “This Sullen Welsh Heart” by Manic Street Preachers.
Love in the Time of Covid
We have created some Lockdown Sceptics Forums, including a dating forum called “Love in a Covid Climate” that has attracted a bit of attention. We have a team of moderators in place to remove spam and deal with the trolls, but sometimes it takes a little while so please bear with us. You have to register to use the Forums, but that should just be a one-time thing. Any problems, email the Lockdown Sceptics webmaster Ian Rons here.
Sharing stories: Some of you have asked how to link to particular stories on Lockdown Sceptics. The answer used to be to first click on “Latest News”, then click on the links that came up beside the headline of each story. But we’ve changed that so the link now comes up beside the headline whether you’ve clicked on “Latest News” or you’re just on the Lockdown Sceptics home page. Please do share the stories with your friends and on social media.
“Mask Exempt” Lanyards
We’ve created a one-stop shop down here for people who want to buy (or make) a “Mask Exempt” lanyard/card. You can print out and laminate a fairly standard one for free here and it has the advantage of not explicitly claiming you have a disability. But if you have no qualms about that (or you are disabled), you can buy a lanyard from Amazon saying you do have a disability/medical exemption here (takes a while to arrive). The Government has instructions on how to download an official “Mask Exempt” notice to put on your phone here. You can get a “Hidden Disability” tag from ebay here and an “exempt” card with lanyard for just £1.99 from Etsy here. And, finally, if you feel obliged to wear a mask but want to signal your disapproval of having to do so, you can get a “sexy world” mask with the Swedish flag on it here.
Don’t forget to sign the petition on the UK Government’s petitions website calling for an end to mandatory face masks in shops here.
A reader has started a website that contains some useful guidance about how you can claim legal exemption.
And here’s an excellent piece about the ineffectiveness of masks by a Roger W. Koops, who has a doctorate in organic chemistry.
The Great Barrington Declaration
The Great Barrington Declaration, a petition started by Professor Martin Kulldorff, Professor Sunetra Gupta and Professor Jay Bhattacharya calling for a strategy of “Focused Protection” (protect the elderly and the vulnerable and let everyone else get on with life), was launched last week and the lockdown zealots have been doing their best to discredit it. If you Googled it on Tuesday, the top hits were three smear pieces from the Guardian, including: “Herd immunity letter signed by fake experts including ‘Dr Johnny Bananas’.” (Freddie Sayers at UnHerd warned us about this hit job the day before it appeared.) On the bright side, Google UK has stopped shadow banning it, so the actual Declaration now tops the search results – and Toby’s Spectator piece about the attempt to suppress it is among the top hits – although discussion of it has been censored by Reddit. The reason the zealots hate it, of course, is that it gives the lie to their claim that “the science” only supports their strategy. These three scientists are every bit as eminent – more eminent – than the pro-lockdown fanatics so expect no let up in the attacks. (Wikipedia has also done a smear job.)
You can find it here. Please sign it. Now over 600,000 signatures.
Judicial Reviews Against the Government
There are now so many JRs being brought against the Government and its ministers, we thought we’d include them all in one place down here.
First, there’s the Simon Dolan case. You can see all the latest updates and contribute to that cause here.
Then there’s the Robin Tilbrook case. You can read about that and contribute here.
Then there’s John’s Campaign which is focused specifically on care homes. Find out more about that here.
There’s the GoodLawProject’s Judicial Review of the Government’s award of lucrative PPE contracts to various private companies. You can find out more about that here and contribute to the crowdfunder here.
The Night Time Industries Association has instructed lawyers to JR any further restrictions on restaurants, pubs and bars.
And last but not least there’s the Free Speech Union‘s challenge to Ofcom over its ‘coronavirus guidance’. You can read about that and make a donation here.
Samaritans
If you are struggling to cope, please call Samaritans for free on 116 123 (UK and ROI), email jo@samaritans.org or visit the Samaritans website to find details of your nearest branch. Samaritans is available round the clock, every single day of the year, providing a safe place for anyone struggling to cope, whoever they are, however they feel, whatever life has done to them.
Shameless Begging Bit
Thanks as always to those of you who made a donation in the past 24 hours to pay for the upkeep of this site. Doing these daily updates is hard work (although we have help from lots of people, mainly in the form of readers sending us stories and links). If you feel like donating, please click here. And if you want to flag up any stories or links we should include in future updates, email us here. (Don’t assume we’ll pick them up in the comments.)
Special thanks to graphic designer and Lockdown Sceptics reader Claire Whitten for designing our new logo. We think it’s ace. Find her work here.
And Finally…
This video about the Asch Conformity Experiment shows how easily people can be induced to go along with a group rather than trusting the evidence they can see with their own eyes, especially when the group is unanimous. Sometimes it is because they become convinced the group must be right because it sees or knows something they don’t. Sometimes it is because they don’t want to stand out or rock the boat. But the more people stand up against the consensus, the more others are willing to look again and decide for themselves. Highly recommended (and only four minutes long).
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.
Tell me again what Mr Lineker said about people who chose not to “get the jab”… I forget.
White Lives Matter
Black Crime Matters
White Civilisation Matters
Bodily Autonomy Matters
Rejecting State Fascism and Rona-ism matters
Open borders and UK cultural destruction matters
Economic migrants here to suck on my tax teat matters
NHS failure matters
etc.
Don’t see any such tweets from the BBC or its paid religious like Lineker.
Why is that?
The FSU, as admiral as its intentions may be, seems to have misunderstood two key points. 1) An employee of the BBC has their salary paid by the public, and the BBC is a very special case of providing a public service. Its very remit is to be impartial – it must be as it’s supposed to represent the people. If you don’t like that part of the contract, you don’t sign. Simple. 2) We will never change anything by playing nicely with these people. They will take your help then spit in your face when you’re no longer needed. If you think you can appeal to their better nature, you are mistaken. There is no compromise with these people. We need to understand that.
It’s a war and we’re very late to the party. It’s time we started behaving accordingly, and that’s not treating these people like they’re our friends or that we have anything in common.
It’s not about playing nicely, just that rules brought in for ostensibly good reasons can and will be easily abused. I don’t care what Lineker tweets, I care that the BBC behaves like the media arm of New Labour, and has been doing so for decades.
The BBC cannot be impartial, it just needs to be broken up into little pieces and sold.
The FSU is playing nicely. That was my point. Mark Steyn would have been a better target for their legal help. As for Linekar: Linekar IS the BBC, you cannot separate the two, so if you care about the BBC being impartial then you understand that the BBC and Linekar are intrinsically linked. Anyway, we’ve disagreed on this before, not much point doing that again. I respect your opinion, but do not agree with it.
I agree the FSU should have offered to help Mark Steyn
The FSU should be hounding OfCom.
Indeed, though they are just doing their jobs. They should not exist, at least in present form. The state has no business regulating broadcasting content.
Ironically, I’ve just read an editorial in a German football paper about this which claimed that the Lineker affair would clearly demonstrate that the BBC isn’t really impartial but just the media arm of the Tories and that the BBC had lost its moral compass because – while it bigottedly made some noises about the world cup in Katar – it would treat (implied comparable) human rights issue in the UK so much differently. Lineker’s statements, including the Nazi-reference, had been entirely appropriate as clear statement in support of human rights and against the dubious political trajectory of Brexit Britain.
https://www.kicker.de/causa-lineker-die-bbc-hat-das-groesste-eigentor-ihrer-geschichte-geschossen-941738/artikel?fbclid=IwAR1OtQ75M5cWxz7Dv4DKdHaPuhdyKIyUNh0-tkk_kuY9deXMaMhe5KVbWLc#fb
[German]
But I guess that present-day professional football isn’t really about sport but more about woke virtue signalling isn’t really news.
How very depressing
I can highly recommend ‘The Parasitic Mind’ by Gad Saad. Here is one relevant quote from this book:
“Angela Merkal’s astounding open border policy granting close to a million Muslim immigrants entry into Germany could be seen as self-flagellation for Germany’s historical transgressions. Laced with typical progressive lunacy, what better way to make up for the Holocaust than by admitting “refugees” who frequently exhibit genocidal hatred of Jews.”
“Angela Merkal’s astounding open border policy…”
Looking back this was actually one of the more blatant examples of the rolling out of the Reset agenda. Virtue signalling has nothing to do with it. And virtue from Merkel? Crikey.
Yes, it was. Apparently no one smelled a rat when she said Germany could take in 1 million Syrians every year for 20 years – did she believe the war in Syria was going to last more than 20 years? The fact that we switched, without any explanation, from Syrians to anyone who could climb into a boat was another clue. Never hear a word about Syrians these days, other than that they didn’t get nearly as much attention or relief as Turkey during the recent earthquakes. So much for helping those in need.
Here is Angela on the anniversary of the end of the Berlin Wall. Not sure she knew which way the wall worked.
“No wall that keeps people out and restricts freedom is so high… that it cannot be broken down.”
And here is the BBC commenting on the difference between Hungary and Germany on the 30th anniversary of the Pan European Picnic.
“Theirs are two very different views of the European project.
One liberal, seeking to incorporate outsiders who can contribute to Europe’s future, the other the more nationalist, eager to erect barriers and to stress the continents traditional Christian outlook.”
“Virtue is more to be feared than vice, because its excesses are not subject to the regulation of conscience” – Adam Smith
Great quote.
In a similar vein:
‘Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.’ – C.S. Lewis
That’s certainly neither relevant to me reporting something about a Kicker editoral nor to the Lineker issue. It seems pretty much run-of-the-mill German bashing by the so-disposed, always only 3.5″ away from the next Holocaust or Nazi-reference. At times, they do sound like a seriously ancient broken record.
You are correct – it cannot, nor ever will be impartial. Sadly, however much Rees Mogg and other Tory MPs give the impression they oppose the licence fee the best that the Tories will offer is to promise to reform the BBC if you give us your vote.
For me hitting them in the pocket by being a licence fee refusenik is the best hope of bringing the BBC to its knees.
Indeed. Don’t give them your money and don’t rely on the Tories doing anything about the BBC. They have had plenty of opportunity regarding that and many other issues on which they sometimes talk a good fight but don’t take action – NHS reform, freedom of speech, law and order, illegal immigration, woke nonsense in education and the civil service etc.
If you don’t like that part of the contract, you don’t sign.
Technically Lineker is not an employee of the BBC – he is a freelancer. We don’t know the details of his contract but the Independent thinks it is ambiguous about his use of social media and the BBC would probably lose if it took him to court.
The irony is that if the BBC and the government had ignored his tweet hardly anyone would have noticed.
“In a follow-up tweet, Gary Lineker said he wanted “to thank Tim Davie for his understanding during this difficult period”.
He added: “He has an almost impossible job keeping everybody happy, particularly in the area of impartiality. I am delighted that we’ll continue to fight the good fight, together.””
The part in bold says it all. The “good fight” is not providing excellent entertainment, great football punditry or whatever, the “good fight” is reshaping the world as they think it should be. The BBC is on a mission.
The TV licence has got to go. It’s that simple. The BBC are dragging their feet replacing it in the belief that Labour will walk the next election and give them another decade. The Tories need to be all over the BBC licence now and insist on a replacement with subscription by the end of this year.
Ultimately, little will alter if the BBC is a subscription service. Most people will continue to pay the subscription, the ones refusing to pay the licence will refuse to pay the subscription, the people watching without paying will no longer be able to watch. The BBC isn’t for everyone, so let’s stop pretending that it is.
The BBC will not be got rid of no matter what government says. It wouldn’t matter if nobody paid the licence fee the BBC would remain, funded by our taxes. The BBC is the State Propoganda Service and as such too valuable to any executive.
We will always be lumbered with the BBC or its replacement.
In the last hour, Rees-Mogg made the same point, and suggested that the beeb’s revenue is now a lot less than the likes of Sky, and Netflix.
People who trust the BBC will tend to have been multiply jabbed.
That cheers me up.
An excellent point. Some will undoubtedly be on God’s shortlist.
Not a great demographic for TV license future revenue streams.
Oh stop wining and just pay up!
It’s the envy of the world!
?
Whether such a free-speech policy is consistent with the BBC’s special commitment, as the licence-fee funded national broadcaster, to be (and appear to be) impartial is another matter.
That is surely the central issue, and why I must differ from the FSU line. Unlike any other employing body, the BBC’s identity is defined by (1) an aspiration to impartiality and (2) a commitment to others (the public at large) having the right of free speech. Impartiality in the sense of neutrality entails balanced and objective reporting of events and issues, and discreet silence – self-restraint if necessary – by front-line employees when not speaking in an official capacity. To that extent, the issue of free speech is a special case. If front-of-stage employees (incl. tax-dodging freelancers), being left-wing in ideology almost to a man, claim the unfettered right of free speech to express their political views, they are violating the commitment to be ostensibly and actually impartial.
The distinction between political and sports commentators is hardly relevant: in the BBC they are all part of the same elite, and perceived as such by the public.
A decent post but intentional or not I must point out Lineker is NOT a “freelancer.” A chancer, yes but definitely NOT a freelancer.
There are always at least two sides to every story.
On the one hand migrants coming to the UK shows that they see our country as a safe haven and one which they can better themselves and something UK citizens should be proud of.
If they are asylum seekers fleeing war and oppression, they should be lauded and helped.
However, if they are economic migrants (often men of fighting age) coming originally from a stable country and land in the UK illegally where they immediately destroy all their documentation, we as a nation do not know who they are and whether they pose a criminal or terrorist threat to the country. They may be coming from France, but they may have moved through many other safe European countries to arrive here.
The UK government has to have the manpower in place for the sheer number of illegal migrants coming to UK shores and the correct protocols for dealing with them effectively.
Lineker is just another woke liberal luvvy who is the epitome of virtue signalling.
The BBC impartial when, did I miss something.
The Do gooding lefty Lineker makes me want to f-ing puke!
The Holier than thou, moralising, pedestal sitting, judgmental, box ticking, egotistical, popularity pampering, multi millionaire A-hole does not speak for me, and I guess, the majority of right minded common sense british people!
There! Glad that’s out my system!!
As for the Lineker loving cowardly downticker,..are you sure your on the right forum?
“He said it again!”
Goal hanging, big eared, crisp flogger!
Wow, we should all pay attention to what this twat has to say!
I don’t recall those fleeing persecution in the 1930s and 1940s going towards Germany. In addition, why would anyone ‘flee’ towards Great Britain if we are like 1930s Germany.
I can only repeat a quote from Peter Hitchens
“When I was a Revolutionary Marxist, we were all in favour of as much immigration as possible. It wasn’t because we liked immigrants, but because we didn’t like Britain. We saw immigrants – from anywhere – as allies against the staid, settled, conservative society that our country still was at the end of the Sixties. Also, we liked to feel oh, so superior to the bewildered people – usually in the poorest parts of Britain – who found their neighbourhoods suddenly transformed into supposedly “vibrant communities”. If they dared to express the mildest objections, we called them bigots.
When we graduated and began to earn serious money, we generally headed for expensive London enclaves and became extremely choosy about where our children went to school, a choice we happily denied the urban poor, the ones we sneered at as “racists”. What did we know, or care, of the great silent revolution which even then was beginning to transform the lives of the British poor?
To us, it meant patriotism and tradition could always be derided as “racist”. And it also meant cheap servants for the rich new middle-class, for the first time since 1939, as well as cheap restaurants and – later on – cheap builders and plumbers working off the books. It wasn’t our wages that were depressed, or our work that was priced out of the market. Immigrants didn’t do the sort of jobs we did.
They were no threat to us. The only threat might have come from the aggrieved British people, but we could always stifle their protests by suggesting that they were modern-day fascists. I have learned since what a spiteful, self-righteous, snobbish and arrogant person I was (and most of my revolutionary comrades were, too).”
You’ve lost me Toby. I renewed my FSU membership recently. I won’t be renewing it again. Or contributing to the Daily Skeptic. Goodbye.
What’s happened?
This is not a free speech issue. Lineker would have us believe it is. Apparently Toby agrees. I don’t.
I for one would be sorry to see you leave, you’ve wrote some brilliant stuff while I’ve been on here, I like earthy input like yours
You’re very kind to say so. My father and grandfather (on my mother’s side) were tradesmen. My grandfather was a joiner (carpenterj. He went to work in dungarees and a shirt and tie every day. What you might call the salt of the earth. Luckily his daughter my mother had the good sense to send me to a decent school and later university. I hope I inherited some of their working class common sense.
I’m a carpenter and my dad was a coal miner in Nottinghamshire so I know where the f your coming from.
The sceptic has a lot of very educated and intelligent people but that’s why I like it, I like to learn. Most of this lot make me look wanting, but where else would you get to voice your views in this sh#@*ole of a world? I don’t do any social media, none!
I’m sure you can guess from my name how old I’m and I’m guessing by your passion and politics your roughly the same?
Sleep on it, common sense people seem to be the minority at the moment, so we need all the level headed people like you we can get!
1958. As far as politics goes, I don’t feel so much passionate as betrayed. By the establishment that I was brought up to defer to and respect. All those institutions that we thought we could trust, Westminster and politicians, the BBC, Academia and science, the judiciary and courts, the police, the NHS and medical profession. All corrupt, self seeking, self absorbed treacherous charlatans. Taking taxpayers’ money and spending it like water on causes that diminish the taxpayers and weaken and undermine the nation.
Then your in the right place here!
The vast majority would totally agree with you, including me. It’s very disheartening to watch a once proud and fair nation degrade into the shyte show that it has become!
Apparent the downvoter thinks that I don’t have the right to decide how to spend my money.
That’s his/her/them/they/…oh god you just get so sick of all this walking on eggshells!
That’s their problem, I’d sooner read your imput!
With power comes responsibility!
Those with fame and power tend to forget this, they end up believing their own importance! Lineker and the bbc will have a day of reckoning! It comes to us/them… its call retribution and it comes from somewhere but not the rich ,famous, or our mortal leaders! Just a whisper I can’t put my finger on, but its powerful!
So endeth the lesson
I suppose some good might come from this shameful backdown. Lineker may well be emboldened by this ‘victory’ and see fit to carry on as before which will surely rile a large chunk of the population. Another case of wait and see.
Given that the Beeb are clearly acting on government orders (or Billy’s even) I cannot accept that the decision to allow Lineker to insult his employer and de facto his real employers – the public paying his wages – was taken solely by Tim Davie. This decision has Downing St all over it. A guaranteed way to stoke the rage of decent taxpayers which seems to be the modus operandi these days.
Lineker may well have the right to free speech but if he does so to do millions of public servants. Where was the right to free speech for those medical professionals who did bravely speak out during the abuses of the last three years and for those who lost their jobs as a result?
As someone who spent some years in the Civil Service I can absolutely guarantee that speaking out so publicly on a political issue would have guaranteed a P45. Yet again the law being used based on perceived social standing.
The decision of the FSU to support this toe-rag is therefore worrying. The FSU readily admits to picking its fights and so I can see no reason why it could not have sat this one out. Lineker has rubbished his employers and got his own way, upsetting many people in the process. There is no gain in this for the FSU.
A disgraceful little episode featuring a scammy public figure who is so full of ego he sees fit to undermine his country and his countrymen simply to satisfy his own grotesque self-importance.
What a long way this nation has fallen.
I don’t understand why the BBC didn’t use the opportunity to get rid of Linker. He’s a contractor, so there’d be no redundancy, and it would have sent a strong message to the others to stay in line.
Sure, there’d have been lots of sports presenters who would have ‘gone on strike’, but I’m sure they could have taken the opportunity to get some junior presenters, or perhaps some from local radio, to do the broadcasts instead — it would have added some variety to their output and also helped younger talent get a foothold in their career. I’m sure that it would have been at least as good as Linker’s pontification.
This missed opportunity will only serve to make their other ‘superstars’ (who appear to be quite average to me) even more insufferable.
They commentate, ‘analyse’, pontificate and postulate about grown men kicking a ball across a field. Who gives a phlying phuck. Seriously?
Nice, your still with us!
During the half time interval a band used to march up and down the pitch to entertain the crowd for 15 mins! Why do we need Pundits? Why?
Yes I have a few days left of my most recent contribution. I won’t be renewing it.
Completely agree – a massive missed opportunity, unless, as per my post…
A DM article said the BBC would lose a lot of money for breach of contract. Quite possible, but not a good enough reason not to do it. It would indeed have sent a message that both employees and contractors have certain obligations to their employers/clients. It would also have been a good opportunity to review why Lineker got such a great, iron-clad contract. This is partly why I agree that the FSU has no need to offer their services to Lineker, I’m sure he had and has the best legal representation his money can buy. Supporting, on principle, his right to free speech does not mean you have to fight his battles for him, there are undoubtedly far more worthy cases out there in need of the FSU’s assistance.
“there are undoubtedly far more worthy cases out there in need of the FSU’s assistance.”
Precisely. Damned stupid of the FSU to get involved. It smacks of wanting to join the club.
I thought we were choosing our battles.
..the reality, which people like Lineker don’t want to admit, is that the kind of migrants they talk about, are nothing like the migrants we have….they aren’t fleeing anything like war, or poverty, or disaster…most of them say they are leaving ‘modern slavery’ whatever that means….but Lineker and his ilk don’t care…it’s just empty, pretend faux-empathy….
“In a Freedom of Information requests conducted by Migration Watch UK, the Home Office has revealed that over half (51.1 per cent) of those identified or claiming to be potential victims of modern slavery who entered the UK by small boat in the first half of 2022 came from Albania; a significant increase on 2021 when Albanians made up 11.2 per cent of those referred as possible victims of modern slavery.”
(also 9 out of 10 Albanians arriving are young men..not families or children and women…)
Albania is not a ‘war torn’ country, and even if it were migrants need to travel through several countries such as Serbia, Hungary and Germany to get to France…all of these are safe countries…
What these overpaid arseholes do par excellence is virtue signalling, they don’t do common sense or any sense of giving a shyte about the places where these people end up, nor the residents that have to live with it…I hate them all with a fiery passion…
Empty, pretend faux empathy – indeed it is.
Lineker believes the borders should be open to all refugees – does that mean without any limit? Let us set aside the argument that the majority are neither refugees nor by the time they come to the UK (or NL for that matter) in an unsafe country. Let us assume they truly are desperate refugees – the world is filled with people living in dreadful circumstances – I could argue that every woman in Afghanistan and Iran should be granted refugee status – that alone would tot up to around 60 million. China’s Uyghurs, Kurds, Mexicans living in areas run by drug cartels – on and on. It is simply impossible to take in every person who deserves a better and safer life. To argue a simple reality is not fascist and it is time that point is driven home.
More importantly, if a country does take in people, it should only do so if it can actually offer them a better life than they left. Housing, education, health care for non-contributors, most of whom will either never become contributors or will only do so after years (mainly through their children) costs money – tax money. The same tax money that our Gazza wants to keep in his pockets. Empty, pretend faux empathy indeed. If he really believed what he said, he would not fight his tax bill and would cough it up willingly – you know, to help the refugees. Never was put your money where your mouth is more apt.
Nailed it.
The Left is built on lies
Stand in the Park Make friends & keep sane
Sundays 10.30am to 11.30am
Elms Field
near Everyman Cinema & play area
Wokingham RG40 2FE
Lineker is ofcourse very naive. But he is entitled to be. — It isn’t so much his point of view that is the problem, because he is entitled to it, just as everyone visiting The Daily Sceptic is entitled to theirs. The problem is that he is a high profile presenter on BBC, and the BBC, being the state broadcaster is supposed to be impartial. Oh dear what to do what to do.————- So if Lineker is reinstated and is free to spout his left wing world view than right wing views must also be allowed otherwise left wing bias will still exist on BBC. So can we now expect BBC presenters to be seen saying things like “This whole climate change dogma is like communism in the old Soviet Union “——Eh I don’t think so. —–What we would all like to know is, what agreement has been reached between BBC presenters etc and the BBC regarding their views on social media on controversial and politicised issues? Apparently, staff were not supposed to say anything that brought the BBC into disrepute. So what changes have the BBC made to those rules? This idea that Lineker can get away with saying things that bring the BBC into disrepute because he is freelance is a bit dodgy. Let’s imagine that the person reading the 6 o’clock News is freelance, how would it look if he was telling us all on BBC News about covid and climate but saying the very opposite on social media? This would be absurd and hard for the BBC to explain away.
The very fact that Lineker has been continuously employed by the BBC since first commencing work in television is proof that he is “contracted.” He is not freelance and his Saturday job for Walkers is just that.
Lineker is and always has been a BBC employee.
Not content with insisting on an open borders policy this Next Tuesday thinks he can avoid making any contribution by refusing to pay tax.
This despicable piece of shyte belongs alongside Bozo and Co – treasonous barstewards.
They seem to be claiming he is “freelance”. ——-Sounds a bit dogy to me but I have no problem with what Lineker is actually saying on political issues. He is as entitled to his opinion as you and I. ——-But he is a high profile person on the BBC who will not allow certain issues like climate, immigration, vaccines etc to be discussed. They try to control the narrative on all of that and have a world view all to the progressive left. But not all license payers are Liberal progressives. You and I are therefore having to fund our own brainwashing by forking out for a license. But my main point is this——If Lineker gets away with spouting his social justice, then right of centre opinion must also be allowed. If Lineker and therefore other presenters and BBC employees can spout social justice then they must also be allowed to spout Right Wing opinions. You cannot just have free speech for liberals only.
I’m so looking forward to the lefty luvvies who “came out” for free speech in support of Lineker, doing the same for the likes of me when I say that a man in a frock (regardless of which dangly bits he does or doesn’t have) can never become a woman.
Oh …. and white lives matter just as much as black ones.
This issue of course isn’t one of free speech at all. It’s about a State Broadcaster which we are to all intents and purposes forced to pay for on the grounds it is politically impartial, being so such thing.
Scrap the BBC’s Telly Tax and the problem goes away …. as will a large number of people currently forced to pay for it.
100% correct.
If you criticise black crime, the tranny’s, the Muslims, the invading enrichers or the economic migrants who all look to be young males, you could elicit a visit from the police.
But Lineker can call anyone a Narzee and all is fine and even applauded.
He can even say the unstabbed like myself should be imprisoned or worse and the BBC has no issue with it.
This is where our once great nation, with a parliament, legal system, history of tolerance, national broadcaster and sporting heritage that were once the envy of the world, has got to. A football pundit who owes the treasury millions in back taxes can take down the national broadcaster by flouting the requirements of his contract on social media, while invoking nazi germany in a critique of government policy and new legislation aimed at solving a problem that the majority want to be solved. Meanwhile a woman is arrested for standing silently near an abortion clinic and saying precisely nothing. And another woman has to apologise for the childish behaviour of her children to a Muslim kangaroo court in the presence of senior police officers while the Muslim officials make threats of violence, and the children have their police records indelibly marred with a hate crime endorsements. That sounds about right fir a country where the leader of his majesty’s loyal opposition can’t define what a woman is, but if he could, she could have a penis, while taking a knee in memory of a drug addict with a history of violent crime who died of a fentanyl overdose in another country thousands of miles away.
That was quite a tirade. It is just utterly pathetic that it is all true.
And therefore probably a hate crime.
Please don’t leave Boomer! Your the ipitome of common sense!
A rather accurate appraisal.
And still therefore probably a hate crime.
What does it mean for the BBC to be impartial? It gets attacked from left and right.
The government definition of impartial seems to mean supporting the government line. If Lineker had tweeted in support of the government policy I don’t suppose there would have been any criticism. The important thing is not that the BBC pursue some meaningless concept of impartiality but that it is independent (as far as possible) of both government and commercial interests and is factually accurate. It has achieved this rather well over the decades but in the last 10 years the government has eroded that.
I’m wondering how the millionaire football pundit in tax arrears would have hypothetically invoked nazi Germany in his hypothetical pro government immigration tweet. I’ll wait.
I can’t watch someone as opinionated as Lineker who is obviously so thick, his opinions are of little value. The UK has large numbers of legitimate immigrants, many for valid reasons of persecution, but no country can afford to take hoards of people breaking borders illegally and thus become responsible for their housing and upkeep. We have enough of our own poor who are suffering because too many of our resources to support them are being used to keep illegal immigrants in hotels. These people are coming from France where, although France wants to be rid of them, they are not being abused I think it’s reasonable for broadcaster employers to restrict public broadcasts as abusive as Lineker’s was. Lineker gets a salary way beyond his worth, and perhaps the BBC should limit the salary level of contract not directly employed workers so that if they do pay them at crazy high levels they must be directly employed. I’m sure with the group of directly employed BBC sports presenters, there are equally or more competent presenters.