by Chauncey Tinker – 1 Aug 2021
The UK's Prime Minister (Boris Johnson) has made an astonishing admission, he has let us know that he is not running the country. Of course he did not make this admission explicitly in so many words, but it was implied in a number of utterances on a variety of subjects.
Apparently Johnson did not think the lockdowns that his government introduced were really necessary. From the Daily Mail:
Boris Johnson was last night outed by his former top aide over claims he dismissed a second lockdown because Covid was 'essentially' only killing the elderly and that he 'didn't buy' claims the NHS would be overwhelmed.
Apparently Johnson (allegedly) also said:
"well this is terrible but the people who are dying are essentially all over 80 and we can't kill the economy just because of people dying over 80"
But ... the second lockdown went ahead anyway, according to the above article just 2 weeks after he allegedly made these statements, and later a third lockdown went ahead as well. The lockdowns have already cost the country a truly astronomical amount of money, and driven many smaller businesses to the wall, so if the allegations are true then Johnson either actually had the right idea but just didn't have the courage of his own convictions, or else he is reporting to somebody else and his own personal opinions don't matter. As I argued in the last post, the government have also set a precedent for lockdowns to be repeated annually, surely we are now on the road to ruin.
You would think that it would be of paramount importance that the man in charge of the country's health, i.e. the Health Secretary, would be highly regarded by the Prime Minister. You would think that this would be even more important when we are supposedly in the middle of an unprecedented health crisis. However, Boris Johnson allegedly described the man he appointed to be the Health Secretary as "totally fucking hopeless", and Hancock when directly asked about this has not denied that Johnson used these words to describe him. From the Guardian:
Johnson's (alleged) criticism of his own Health Secretary was made last year, quite early on during the "crisis", yet Johnson only eventually sacked Hancock this year, and then only after Hancock was caught breaking his own social distancing guidelines by kissing and groping his closest aide. From the Sun:
From the BBC:
Another big question that arises in my mind in light of the above allegations then, is if the Prime Minister is not responsible for the appointment of the Health Secretary then who on earth is?
Uppermost at the moment in the minds of UK citizens who are concerned about the ongoing erosion of freedom of speech in their country is the "Online Harms" bill aka the "Online Safety Bill", a bill that began life during Theresa May's administration. Many expected that PM Johnson would crush this bill when he came to power, because Johnson has always tried to promote himself as a freedom loving conservative, and many of his own utterances in the past have been considered to be a bit risque (i.e. potentially harmful in the vague language of this bill) by many. However the legislation is still on the agenda regardless.
2.2 The legislation will set out that online content and activity should be considered harmful, and therefore in scope of the regime, where it gives rise to a reasonably foreseeable risk of a significant adverse physical or psychological impact on individuals.
But the COVID-19 pandemic has shone a spotlight on the risks posed by harmful activity and content online. The pandemic drove a spike in disinformation and misinformation, and some people took advantage of the uncertainty to incite fear and cause confusion.
Companies providing Category 1 services will have to fulfil a duty of care towards adult users accessing legal but harmful content and activity on their services
We see the lines between legal and illegal content being blurred here (once again), and a clear intent to silence those who question the official narrative around what is described as "the COVID-19 pandemic". Bizarrely, the Prime Minister himself apparently questioned the official narrative around the "pandemic" (and the best response to it) according to those alleged comments quoted above! Surely the Prime Minister is not going to allow legislation to be enacted that would suppress the online expression of opinions he himself holds?
The above government response praises social media companies for suppressing criticism of the World Health Organization and the NHS:
The COVID-19 pandemic brought the danger of disinformation and misinformation content online into sharp focus. In response to this, companies introduced new design interventions focused on strengthening users’ media literacy. Nearly all the major social media services made technical changes to their products, including techniques to protect user safety online.
YouTube continues to remove content which denies the existence of COVID-19 or contradicts the World Health Organization or NHS medical information. The service also prohibits adverts published alongside content which promotes harmful health-related content, including anti-vaccination information.
So the supposedly conservative government wants to suppress criticism of the WHO, and criticism of the NHS, what could possibly go wrong? Have these organizations never been wrong on any subject, and has nothing EVER been found to be wrong with any approved vaccine? Promoting the idea that vaccinations are necessarily safe in spite of all the well-known facts about previous failures is the real illiteracy here. From Buzzfeed:
The idea that we are "strengthening users’ media literacy" by protecting them from opinions that differ from the current consensus is simply absurd. The government is acting as if we now live in an era where all scientific questions are settled, public health bodies never make mistakes, where all medical procedures are safe, and debate is no longer necessary. From the BBC:
Don't worry though, because officially sanctioned "news media" will apparently be allowed to publish "unsafe" content. From the Press Gazette:
That's reassuring, because we all know how utterly reliable the mainstream media is these days (apologies I am being heavily sarcastic here). More on MSM misinformation in a coming post to highlight the scale of the problem during the supposed "pandemic" - the MSM are the biggest, and so of course the most influential, source of misinformation and disinformation in fact, not that I would want to see more government interference in the freedom of the press.
Then of course there is the question of vaccine passports, a policy that Johnson's government has flip-flopped on a number of times already. According to an article at the Week (via MSN), Vaccines Minister Nadhim Zahawi tweeted in January:
“We have no plans to introduce vaccine passports… No one has been given or will be required to have a vaccine passport”.
Now Johnson has announced that the government will introduce vaccine passports in September. From ITV:
"Some of life's most important pleasures and opportunities are likely to be increasingly dependent on vaccinations," Mr Johnson said.
"Nightclubs need to do the socially responsible thing and make use of the NHS Covid Pass as a means of entry."
What's next, a social credit system perhaps?
Is Johnson simply trying to distance himself from his own government's policies as a sort of damage limitation exercise, or is he not actually in charge of the government? I did note the presence of the WEF slogan "Build Back Better" on the Conservative Party website in the last discussion; perhaps the title Prime Manager would be more appropriate, if Johnson does in fact report to somebody else? Johnson has repeatedly tried to promote himself as a present day Churchill, but Churchill saw a looming threat whereas Johnson IS the looming threat (or at least he is the chief representative of the looming threat in the UK). I can't help mentioning the fact that I did try to warn people about this individual at the time of the Conservative Party leadership election (when many conservatives were enthusiastically pro-Boris).
From the New York Post:
Even the BBC admits Fauci changed his opinion on the usefulness of wearing masks in the prevention of the spread of airborne viruses:
My articles on the subject of Boris Johnson, both written around the time of the Conservative Party leadership election :
What do you think? Please leave a comment below.