by Chauncey Tinker – 29 Aug 2021
Ben Irvine has written an utterly fascinating article about union influence in the response to COVID-19, he has clearly been watching events a lot more closely than most commentators. It's rather long, but the gist of the article is that all the government's drastic policy reversals have come about as a result of pressure on the government from the unions and the British Medical Association. Here is the article:
However one key question remains unanswered in my mind, and that is why is Johnson not at least opposing the mass vaccination program? Why in particular is Johnson not opposing the mass vaccination of children who even the BBC admits to be at "extremely low risk". The risks of the vaccinations have been either ignored or heavily downplayed by the media, but I really don't think anybody who is directly involved can be very confident that large numbers of children might not be severely affected in the long term (and significant numbers may even die). This is a subject I wrote about recently:
Ben Irvine does address the issue in his article, but he seems to be a little bit behind the curve as he thinks the momentum to vaccinate children is in abeyance, and the exact opposite is in fact the case:
The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation has recently recommended against routine Covid jabs for children, on the grounds that the risk far outweighs any negligible benefit. This is significant, because four teaching unions in a joint statement have called for a rollout of Covid vaccinations for pupils. And Patrick Roach, General Secretary of the NASUWT has talked about the “benefit” of making the Covid vaccine available to schoolchildren. Recently the vaccine has been made available for 16/17 years olds, which has been welcomed by the NEU. There has been an alarming momentum towards vaccinating children, and it seems that this momentum is currently in abeyance. That’s cause for hope.
The narrative on vaccinating children in fact has been shifting further very recently in favour of the jabs, after the JCVI got Professor Dingwall out of the way. From the Spectator:
Yesterday (27th August) we have this from the Daily Mail:
I continue to have nothing but contempt for Boris Johnson in spite of the fact that Ben Irvine's points about the influence of the unions and the NHS etc hit home. The thing an honorable man would do when finding himself utterly at the whim of malign actors (be they socialists, corrupt doctors, or the WEF etc) would be to come clean, tell the world, and resign, and then write a book about all of it. I do take Ben Irvine's point about the risk that even worse politicians might have replaced him, but he could have triggered a huge debate all over the world if he had done the decent thing, and that might well have created a very different political climate everywhere.
If he had done that he would have become a superstar in the eyes of conservatives and freedom lovers the world over, but he did not, because he is a weak and self-serving career politician, and to do so would have completely alienated him from his peers. If he does that now, as Ben Irvine seems to be suggesting at the end of his article, he will easily be dismissed as a hypocrite (or worse charged with criminal misconduct in public office, particularly if children do die from the jabs), so I fear it is too late for that in any case. He has already woven a very tangled web, there is no way out for Boris Johnson at this point.
From the Times:
From the Sun (last December):
The UK's Prime Minister (Boris Johnson) has made an astonishing admission, he has let us know that he is not running the country..
What do you think? Who is running the country? Please leave a comment below.