Tip - If you are using a phone, set the "Desktop Site" option in your browser   

Featured

Stand With Us!

Details
Category: Covid
Hits: 45

2025-11-26

First up, a plea from Mark Attwood to those NHS and other medical staff who now realise that maybe, just maybe, inoculating the public at large with novel medical technology that

  • had been developed "at warp speed" within months whilst earlier vaccines had required years of testing,
  • had not been approved for general use except under an Emergency Use Authorisation,
  • to allegedly defend against the "emergency" of a deadly "pandemic" that had no statistically significant effect upon the normally expected rate of "deaths from all causes", 
  • which overwhelmingly "killed" people with comorbidities at around their expected lifespan, and  had no measurable effect on children who were nevertheless inoculated anyway,
  • which was administered without any pretence at "informed consent", and indeed for some people under coercion, 
  • and for everybody, under a pervasive institutional psychological campaign to instill an unwarranted pathological fear of "the pandemic" 

was

a) Not a good idea
b) Would likely entail unacceptable risks
c) Would leave doctors and medical staff open to criminal charges under the Nuremberg Codes

If you now realise this failure, it's not too late to come clean, admit it, and act accordingly. It will drive another nail into the pandemic narrative's coffin, and it really is your own judgement that will now count.

Think on.

Secondly: Following on from a previous article, Interest of Justice reminds us how the pandemic was a fraud, that the WHO failed to defend itself in Costa Rica:

"The significance of this institutional testimony lies in its establishment of mens rea—the requisite mental element for establishing that the violations were not inadvertent policy failures but rather deliberate institutional actions undertaken with full knowledge of the legal and medical implications"

"The Costa Rican Constitutional Chamber has rendered decisions establishing that governmental actions violated constitutional protections. International litigation mechanisms are now examining state obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Disciplinary proceedings against governmental and institutional actors are proceeding through multiple jurisdictions. The vindication, though delayed, is becoming institutional reality."

Quite so.

Stand with them if you can. This won't happen without public support. Not only do "many hands make light work", in this case "many hands make legal history".

Be part of it!

 

"Our" National Harms Service

Details
Category: Child Abuse
Hits: 93

2025-11-26

The NHS is showing its "progressive" tendencies.

Despite the many good people still trying to make this unstable top-heavy unaccountable progressivistic leviathan work for our benefit, its leadership is myopic, management is treated as a specialism in its own right and thus populated by expert managers, and the stench of rank stupidity has become intolerable.

Other than that the NHS is wonderful of course and we wouldn't have it any other way ...

 

The Jury is Out!

Details
Category: Legal
Hits: 46

2025-11-26

The administrative government, seemingly oblivious to the constitutional need for our citizens to be judged by a "jury of our peers", now proposes, in order to cut the administrative backlog now denying justice to criminals and victims alike, to abolish the right to a jury for "non-serious" offences.

Magna Carta? What's that? How old-fashioned! We need to be modern, and grasp the benefits that modernity offers! Who would not want justice delivered promptly and without fear? Ancient and outdated tradition must not be permitted to stand in the way of progress!

This is how the ignorant and the mendacious want to convince us to abandon what remains of our Constitution so that they may better rule the people by decree. No matter that it is the people themselves who were sovereign, have always been sovereign, still are sovereign, and will always be sovereign unless and until they give up their sovereignty for the "mess of pottage" loosely but misleadingly known as "Progressivism" (AKA modern Parliamentarianism). And yes, we are well down that road today already ...

And yes, indeed we do need "progress", but toward what end? Is it to be toward the sovereignty of the people over their government, or toward the sovereignty of those self-righteous scoundrels miscreants (AKA politicians) and technocrats who would set themselves up to rule over the people for their own ends? 

Will Jones reports.

 

Down the Rabbit Hole - to the Origins of Christianity?

Details
Category: Free Citizen
Hits: 59

2025-11-25

This is dangerous territory, so before plunging in, if you have not already, please read Down the Rabbit Hole 1 wherein I attempt to justify taking a critical look at topics which many will find controversial.

Here someone else takes a look at early Christianity (upon which topic the brainwashing has had at least two millennia to get going). He's obviously done a lot more work on this than I have, so I'm very happy to concede the leadership on this one.

But first, to get ourselves into the mood ...

Do we believe that the Bible as we know it today is the uncorrupted Word of God?

Do we think we know the origins of the Church of England?

Or the foundation of Christianity in Rome after the martyrdom of St Peter?

What is the true meaning of the Holy Spirit?

How did we go from there to the burning of heretics at the stake (even for merely translating the Bible into English!), and the notorious genocide of the Cathars? 

If you ask me, these acts alone (and I don't doubt there are many more) indelibly mark the Vatican as the incarnation of Satan on Earth. Or at least the Antichrist. 

But what about our good old C of E?

Read very carefully - it's dark in here! You decide, if you dare.

Exercise for our readers: 
Consider whether the Cathars were similar to the pre-Roman civilisation in the British Isles, and in what ways they are known to have differed?

Note:

To access the Bernician's website, copy this URL ( https://www.thebernician.net/ ) into your browser and carefully negotiate the Captcha procedure to validate your humanity. Good Luck!

 

Habeus Courtus - Legal Necessity or Typo?

Details
Category: Free Citizen
Hits: 43

2025-11-25

Yes, Martin Geddes has been up to his illuminations of matters legal and lawful, in terms that I would wager most of us could comprehend.

If we were asked to attend court and found ourselves "had up" before the head teacher in the local secondary school, we might begin to question the genuineness not only of the proceedings but also of those conducting the proceedings.

"When is a 'Court' not a Court?" would be a relevant question, and the Head Teacher should have some explaining to do.

Still, if instead we had attended in a building labelled as a "Court" and been confronted by somebody professing to be a magistrate, would anybody dare to question the legitimacy of the situation? Yet the overwhelming likelihood of just accepting the given as legitimate surely is an open invitation for fraudsters to take advantage? Even unwitting fraudsters who themselves had not validated their higher authority?

Maybe this idea should be further explored ...

Page 6 of 324