- Category: Legal
- Hits: 860
"Our mission statement is simple:
To bring LEGAL JUSTICE to UK citizens for the devastating harm caused by lockdowns to families and businesses"
I am grateful to Lockdown Sceptics for this link to the PCR Claims site, which is working to establish the legal claims situation, where people and businesses that have incurred damage to their interests due to the unprecedented public restrictions introduced in response to the "pandemic" can submit their evidence of loss to their legal team.
I'm not sure how that works exactly but it looks well worth following up. It's nigh-on impossible to mount a court case against the government as an individual, but as a group - it could be viable. This is an opportunity for "we the people" to hold the government to account.
Lead Counsel Jo Rogers:
". . . when it becomes known globally, when it becomes an accepted principle (which I believe it is) that the PCR test is not fit for purpose, then the whole house of cards is going to fall down"
". . . I really want those individuals to have an option, and what we are aiming to do here is gather evidence, get the evidence now, because there's no point in two years time looking back and thinking "Oh, if only I'd remembered to get my doctor's report, or if only I'd spoken to my accountant at the time, if only . . . , and captured all of that data", so our team is gathering evidence but also those individuals who have suffered losses also need to gather their evidence, we want to hear from them"
Get cracking - this isn't just for you, it is for the people of the United Kingdom.
- Category: Great Reset
- Hits: 711
If you have been wondering about who is pulling the strings behind the greatest incoming global reconfiguration of our lives, and probably of the century, then this is your chance to get to "know thine enemy".
If you want to know about the "Great Reset" (synonyms: "Sustainable Development", "Green New Deal", "UN Agenda 2030"), where it came from and how we got here, and more importantly where we are going, you probably can't do better than listen to James Delingpole interview Patrick Wood (an expert in the Trilateral Commission) who has spent many years investigating the Technocracy movement which started out in the US in the 1930s.
Necessarily this is a deep dive, but a mine of information. Unmissable!
"this is the biggest intellectual sham of history"
"read the UN Agenda 2030 document"
"who has the power to shut down the global economy?"
"these people are absolutely insane"
Funny how the same names keep recurring (Boris also features, along with other UK politicians).
The Trilateral Commission (membership) - download.
Visit Patrick Wood's Web-site: https://www.technocracy.news/ where you can join his email list and find a great deal of useful information.
- Category: Free Citizen
- Hits: 730
One of the things that has surprised me this autumn is the number of different sources of unrelated categories of information that are all coming around to the central question of our time:-
What the COVID is going on?!
We have seen offerings from Green Med Info (an alternative health site), from news journalists (sadly now few and far between) from independent individuals around the world (happily there are many more) doing their own research, and all coming to much the same conclusions.
The internet is a wonderful boon to us all, but also to those who would rule the world for themselves rather than for us. If we want our freedom then we must deal with those who would steal it before they do so.
Today i offer you another independent report from Foster Gamble (of Thrive) who has spent a number of years travelling the world and investigating all manner of esoteric topics (sacred geometry, free energy, you get the idea) - and ending up right on the Covid nail. And he gives all his source references.
This is quite a tour de force - for a crash course in what large numbers of independent researchers are now following up, this is one of the best. It may shock you - the implications are truly scary - but if you have been following this site you should be prepared.
One thing does seem to be becoming clear - the world is already set upon the path to change very fast now in one direction or another - we have come to a fork in the road and we can choose freedom love and tolerance or increasing restrictions indifference (at best), and ultimately slavery.
It's our choice, choose wisely, choose actively, but choose quickly.
- Category: Legal
- Hits: 902
"A Bill to make provision for, and in connection with, the authorisation of criminal conduct in the course of, or otherwise in connection with, the conduct of covert human intelligence sources"
This is an extraordinary Bill.
Basically it introduces one law for the governed, another for the governors' covert agents.
"Covert Human Intelligence Sources (CHIS) are crucial in preventing and safeguarding victims from many serious crimes . . . "
"The Bill provides an express power to authorise CHIS to participate in conduct which would otherwise constitute a criminal offence"
"This is not a new capability; the Bill provides a clear legal basis for a longstanding tactic which is vital for national security and the prevention and detection of crime"
(in other words they have been doing this for years so don't worry, nothing to see here)
"Only the intelligence agencies, NCA, police, HMRC, HM Forces and ten other public authorities will be able to authorise criminal conduct"
Of course it includes provision for "safeguards":
"The Bill requires the Investigatory Powers Commissioner to keep under review public authorities’ use of the power and to include information on criminal conduct authorisations in his annual report"
"The Investigatory Powers Tribunal will continue to have jurisdiction to investigate and determine complaints against public authorities’ use of this power"
Am I alone in thinking that this raises far to many questions for any free-thinking citizen to contemplate with equanimity?
- Why is no court authorisation process involved? If the police simply want to search a house, they must first get a search warrant, but if they want to commit a crime, they don't need a court's permission?
- Is there to be no separation of powers?
- Will each agency authorise its own crimes?
- Is it really necessary to commit crimes "in the interests of the economic well-being of the UK"?
- Is it really necessary to commit crimes "in order to prevent disorder"?
- Is it really necessary to commit crimes "in order to prevent or detect crime"?
But fundamentally this Bill drives a coach and horses through the basic principle that justice must be seen to be done.
A vague commitment for the Investigatory Powers Commissioner to produce an annual report may be confidently expected to be inconsequential in practice, will probably (justly or otherwise) be considered as whitewash, and can do nothing to provide transparency since the matters under consideration will by definition be covert and will presumably be considered to need to remain so.
Likewise the Investigatory Powers Tribunal is hardly likely to be overwhelmed by complaints if crimes are (as we may expect given the covert nature of the CHIS) committed covertly.
In practice there seems to be almost nothing in this Bill that will in reality reassure the public that these "public authorities" will not in time come to consider themselves above the law.
Far from furthering the objective of safeguarding victims from serious crime, this Bill could pave the way for official involvement in such serious crimes if any part of the government or its covert agencies should be corrupted - and who would bet against that possibility?
Remember the golden rule of life and computing - "if it can go wrong, it will".
Ultimately the only defence is transparency, and this measure does not measure up.
- Category: Covid
- Hits: 1108
When the pandemic subsided in June and deaths became "normal" again, many of us thought that it was all over.
Not so fast! Deprived of their death statistics, the newspapers and governments world-wide simply transferred their attention to "cases", a suspect figure depending solely on a positive result from the now famous PCR Test.
Medical tests are normally applied at the request of a physician in order to confirm or exclude a suspected diagnosis, but today we see a frantic effort to apply it to all and sundry as widely as possible and to regard every positive result as an infection.
I won't rehearse these arguments yet again here, but a result of this strategy is that:
if the PCR Test should not be worthy of the trust that is currently accorded it, then the pandemic narrative is rebutted in short order.
Now "we all know" that science is advanced by the "scientific method" whereby somebody publishes a paper in as well-known a journal as he can persuade to publish it, and that paper will describe the detailed research undertaken and the results achieved so that other scientists can replicate the work and validate or disprove the original findings.
Until a sufficient body of confirmatory research/validation has been carried out, the original paper stands as a proposition, rather than as accepted truth.
The "PCR Test" for SARS-Cov-2 was first published in a paper entitled "Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR” (Eurosurveillance 25(8) 2020) and was attributed to a number of authors, including Victor M Corman and Christian Drosten in January 2020.
This paper was subsequently adopted by the WHO as the authority upon which the roll-out of the PCR Test world-wide was based.
So it is with great interest that I note the findings of a new paper that seems to be the first peer review of that original paper:
Authored by Pieter Borger, Rajesh K. Malhotra, Michael Yeadon and others, it presents a point-by-point review in which
- "all components of the test design were cross checked"
- "the protocol recommendations were assessed with respect to good laboratory practice"
- "the parameters were examined against relevant scientific literature covering the field"
They point out (amongst many other issues) that
- "neither the presented test nor the manuscript itself fulfils the requirements for an acceptable scientific publication"
- "serious conflicts of interest of the authors are not mentioned"
- "the very short timescale between submission and acceptance of the publication (24 hours) signifies that a systematic peer review process was either not performed here, or of problematic poor quality"
- "considering the scientific and methodological blemishes presented here, we are confident that the editorial board of Eurosurveillance has no other choice but to retract the publication"
- "A final point is one of major concern. It turns out that two authors of the Corman-Drosten paper, Christian Drosten and Chantal Reusken, are also members of the editorial board of this journal"
Of particular significance they assert
- "In short, a design relying merely on close genetic relatives does not fulfill the aim for a “robust diagnostic test” as cross reactivity and therefore false-positive results will inevitably occur"
- "These are severe design errors, since the test cannot discriminate between the whole virus and viral fragments. The "test cannot be used as a diagnostic for SARS-CoV-2 viruses"
- "of major relevance, the functionality of the published RT-PCR Test was not demonstrated with the use of a positive control (isolated SARS-CoV-2 RNA) which is an essential scientific gold standard"
- "the E gene used in RT-PCR test, as described in the Corman-Drosten paper, is not specific to SARS-CoV-2"
- "It is inevitable that this test will generate a tremendous number of so-called “false positives”
There is much more and I encourage everyone to read the paper for yourself - the technical parameters may be arcane but the essential message is damning.
Their final assessment is unequivocal:
- "we have identified concerning errors and inherent fallacies which render the SARS-CoV-2 PCR test useless"
I wonder who will listen?
Page 5 of 9