•  Previous
  • 1
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18(current)
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Government Abuse
Rishi Sunak spends £500,000 of taxpayers’ cash on focus groups ‘to repair his image’

Rishi Sunak is spending a further £500,000 of taxpayers’ cash on focus groups and polling, new Treasury contracts reveal, sparking a claim that he is trying to “repair his image”.
Researchers have been hired to carry out two focus groups and one national online poll each week until February 2023 – taking the total outlay over two years to more than £1.35m, Labour has said.
Angela Rayner, the party’s deputy leader, said the chancellor had shifted from testing public opinion about the Covid pandemic to making such spending “a permanent fixture”.
The new contracts were awarded after Mr Sunak “told the British people he has no money to ease the cost of living crisis and that cutting their energy bills would be ‘silly’,” she alleged.
“The government apparently has half a million to spend on spin doctors while Jacob Rees-Mogg is threatening to axe thousands of civil service jobs in the name of cost saving,” Ms Rayner said.
Read more: Rishi Sunak spends £500,000 of taxpayers’ cash on focus groups ‘to repair his image’
Boris Johnson is Guilty of Misleading Parliament and, Worse, Imposing Lockdown Restrictions in the First Place, Says Spectator

Boris Johnson is guilty of misleading the House of Commons and, even more seriously, of putting “the lockdown laws on the statute book in the first place, framing them in such a way as to criminalise everyday interactions”. That’s the damning verdict of the Spectator, a publication the Prime Minister himself once edited, in its leading article today.
The Prime Minister remains guilty – most explicitly of misleading the House of Commons when he denied that any parties took place. He has shown a serious failure, too, in not learning from his mistakes. It is no use him or anyone else in Government complaining about the triviality of the charges. His Government put the lockdown laws on the statute book in the first place, framing them in such a way as to criminalise everyday interactions.
Now the Prime Minister’s allies plead for clemency. It is in human nature, they say, to gather to bid farewell to a departing friend or colleague, to offer friendship and succour. Quite so. Johnson’s allies further argue that, as he raised his glass in a toast, he did so in a work capacity – as evidenced by the presence of his red box. This Jesuitical defence would be more plausible if the Government’s laws had not seen ordinary people dragged to court and found guilty of far milder offences. Let us consider his defence for the leaving party: I briefly attended such gatherings to thank them for their service – which I believe is one of the essential duties of leadership. Particularly important when people need to feel that their contributions had been appreciated and to keep morale as high as possible.It is a damning – and accurate – charge against the Prime Minister that he is no man of principle
Does he realise, even now, that he made it illegal for anyone to do this during lockdown? Where, in his lockdown rules, was the exemption for the ‘essential duties of leadership?’ Where was the clause allowing those outside the ruling elite to have a regular ‘wine-time Friday?’ Does he realise that he personally used the powers of his office to send the police after anyone else who would have attended a gathering to salute a departing colleague? Or, for that matter, to console a friend, visit a dying relative or even attend a funeral in numbers greater than stipulated by the staff of No. 10.
Read More: Boris Johnson is Guilty of Misleading Parliament and, Worse, Imposing Lockdown Restrictions in the First Place, Says Spectator
The British Government, the World Health Organization 
 ... and the Global Coup of 2020

By John Stone

In March 2020 the British Government decided to impose lockdown on the determination of the WHO against the advice of its own medical experts - the experts then followed the policy

I am trying to understand the events of March 2020 in the light of an answer to a recent Freedom of Information Request. Why and how was it that four days before lockdown was imposed on March 23 the four Chief Medical Officers of the United Kingdom posted a notice on-line announcing that COVID-19 had been downgraded from the status of High Consequence Infectious Disease (HCID).

This peculiar event has not gone entirely un-noticed but has never really been explained. Before this point the disease named in the document  as COVID-19 (rather than  identified as virus SARS-CoV-2) - was a “high consequence infectious disease”, while almost at the very instant our lives, and everyone’s,  were to be irrevocably pitched into turmoil with the denial of civil liberties and most basic human rights, untold economic destruction and chaos, it was no longer such.

If the disease was no longer “high consequence” there could be absolutely no reason for this high level and prolonged disruption, and yet it was at this precise moment that the inevitability of lockdown started to be promoted, only to be confirmed four days later. But according to the CMOs’ reckoning at no point in the past two and a quarter years, whatever actions they took to restrict our lives or coerce us to accept injections of novel products, has the disease been “high consequence”. 

This anomaly cannot I believe be stressed enough: my FOI request produced no new documents but the Department of Health and Social Care drew my attention to a Parliamentary answer by Jo Churchill on November 6,  2020 to Conservative MP John Redwood (submitted fully 5 and a half weeks before on September 28):
The four nations public health high consequence infectious disease (HCID) group made an interim recommendation in January 2020 to classify COVID-19 as an HCID, based on the information that was available during the very early stages of the outbreak.

Once more was known about COVID-19, United Kingdom public health bodies reviewed the available information against the HCID criteria and noted certain changes. These changes included the increase in information available about mortality rates, which are low overall amongst the general population; greater clinical awareness; and the availability of a specific and sensitive laboratory test for the virus.

COVID-19 has not been considered a HCID in the UK since 19 March 2020, but this reclassification has not affected the Government’s response to COVID-19, which remains a comprehensive national effort.

So, the junior minister, Jo Churchill, confirmed that decision was made with due consideration and not because of some expedience: this remained the case on November 6, 2020, and remains the case today because whatever the CMOs have said subsequently to the public, notably government Chief Medical Officer Sir Chris Whitty they have not updated this statement.

With this in mind let us go back and look at what was said in the statement of March 19, 2020 :it may be one of those occasions when British government documents are more revealing than most.

As of 19 March 2020, COVID-19 is no longer considered to be a high consequence infectious disease (HCID) in the UK. There are many diseases which can cause serious illness which are not classified as HCIDs.

The 4 nations public health HCID group made an interim recommendation in January 2020 to classify COVID-19 as an HCID. This was based on consideration of the UK HCID criteria about the virus and the disease with information available during the early stages of the outbreak. Now that more is known about COVID-19, the public health bodies in the UK have reviewed the most up to date information about COVID-19 against the UK HCID criteria. They have determined that several features have now changed; in particular, more information is available about mortality rates (low overall), and there is now greater clinical awareness and a specific and sensitive laboratory test, the availability of which continues to increase.

The Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens (ACDP) is also of the opinion that COVID-19 should no longer be classified as an HCID.
They have recorded their expert view for all time this is an infection without implications for health and government policy (it doesn’t have “high consequence”). So, I think it is the next bit we need to look at to explain what happened:

The World Health Organization (WHO) continues to consider COVID-19 as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC), therefore the need to have a national, coordinated response remains and this is being met by the government’s COVID-19 response.

What they are manifestly saying is that government is not following the advice of  relatively sensible (or once sensible) British health officials but the World Health Organization, and WHO is telling the British health officials what to do as a matter of government policy. In this regard the WHO’s most recent attempt to impose its official authority over governments - and particularly Western governments - in May 2022 already seemed to be the de facto reality in early 2020: everything was coming from the network of global organisations - WHO, UN, WEF all closely linked - and the corporate interests, notably the ventures of Bill Gates, GAVICEPI etc. they represented as part of a wider project of domination. It is a very interesting question why a country with huge medical and scientific resources, inordinate if languishing expertise of its own should defer to an organisation with a vastly flawed history: while everybody either kowtowed like Whitty, or was brutally swept aside. It seems as if the decision to scuttle our heritage had already been taken by humanly disengaged politicians.

For lazy, cowardly politicians - of which there are many -  it may seem like a clever option to defer to authority - it protects them from making responsible decisions themselves, but unfortunately it is simply a gimmick, opening the country to brutal corporate exploitation rather than traditional clinical wisdom. The lunacy of the new science could not be better represented the UK’s new and disreputable partnership with the Gates/WEF/Wellcome creation CEPI  to bring emergency mRNA injections to the market without any testing in future in 100 days. We can know nothing useful about the effectiveness and safety of such products in such a time space, and this is simply devoid of the most basic common sense which we should at least be able to expect from the people we elect.
Finally, so sad also to see the British monarchy get sucked into this folly, which people might have thought outside their brief.

John Stone is UK Editor.
Related Stories
For the rest of this article please go to source link below.


Existing user? Sign in here
Staff at Refugee Facility Warned They Will Have to Handle Violence, Anti-Social Behavior and Death

Potential employees working at a controversial refugee center set to be located in a village of just 700 residents in the UK have been told they should prepare to deal with violent situations, anti-social behavior and “death”.
But wait, I thought diversity was a strength?
As we previously highlighted, despite indicating it may back down on the scheme, the government is already hiring staff to work at the facility in Linton-on-Ouse, a small village in northern England.
Despite the fact that the village has just one shop and only 700 permanent residents, 1500 asylum seekers, the vast majority young men, are set to be housed at the facility, a former RAF base.
Locals thought they had defeated the plan after staging vociferous protests, but last week it was revealed that the government had already begun hiring staff to work at the site.
According to MP Kevin Hollinrake, recruitment has already begun for 300-400 employees to staff the center and “facilities are also being moved onto the site.”
A job advert that was posted by Serco, the outsourcing company used by the government, warned potential recruits of what they would have to deal with.
This included, “Urgent medical needs, suicide risks, domestic violence situations, violence and anti-social behaviour, death, and child safeguarding needs.”
Read More: Staff at Refugee Facility Warned They Will Have to Handle Violence, Anti-Social Behavior and Death
  •  Previous
  • 1
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18(current)

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)