First there were lockdowns. Then came the vaccines. Next, the idea that certain parts of society might be for the vaccinated only – enabled by smartphone-based vaccine passports. But is this momentum towards social control the precursor of digital biometric ID? Will the state require us all to sacrifice our independence and free will to participate in society? Is this all an inexorable move towards an Orwellian dystopia where we are coerced into constant surveillance, or get effectively side-lined by society? Could we also be looking at central digital currencies, tied to our identity – that could be turned off if we don’t behave, don’t obey?
Or is digital ID merely an inevitable next stage of our adoption of technology? After all, there are benefits that we’ve all enjoyed – not needing to carry cash, getting whatever we need, when we need it, via eCommerce. We’ve also adapted to working at home, connected to the world via video conferencing apps, avoiding the commute, office politics and hot-desking. Digital identity could be the next logical step to better and safer social experiences. After all, we’ve agreed to it for air travel – why not extend it to ensure the world runs better and safer?
On the 25th of November we’ll be holding our first in-person debate in London.
The Motion: This house believes that the digitisation of our lives has gone too far and poses an immediate threat to life and liberty. We must never accept any form of digital ID and to guard against this we must preserve the human right to a non-digital life.
FOR THE MOTION Francis Hoar – Barrister and Human Rights Lawyer Bob Moran – Award winning political cartoonist and writer
AGAINST THE MOTION Bill McCluggage – Former Deputy CIO, HMG, Cabinet Office A second speaker against the motion will be announced soon.
Our venue can accommodate just 200 seated guests so we would encourage early booking. Delegates will be notified of venue, via email, after booking. Please bring a printed paper copy of your ticket with you to the venue on the evening. We look forward to meeting you on November 25th. Book Now.
I have worked in marketing for over 30 years. I know the monster that I, and other marketers, have created. The monster is called FUD: fear, uncertainty and doubt.
To come to my own defence, I’ve only ever worked in the business-to-business end of marketing. It’s trickier to instil fear, uncertainty and doubt into a hard-bitten business decision-maker than Joe Public. But we try anyway. But the assault on the buying public, coercing them to take drugs they almost certainly don’t need, has been going on for years. And this has especially been the case in the so-called “developed world”.
In the United States pharmaceutical companies dominate television advertising. If you’ve visited America (prior to 2020, when you were allowed to) and flicked on the television, you’ll have been bombarded with adverts for every kind of weird and not-so-wonderful drug. The Americans are among the most medicated people in the world spending, per capita, twice the OECD average on legal drugs. And this expenditure doesn’t do the nation many favours. America is one of the world’s most addicted nations in terms of prescription and illegal drugs.
Some 75% of TV advertising expenditure in the United States is by drug companies. In 2020, pharma companies spent a vast $6.58 billion on advertising (source Kantar Media). It was a bumper year because of Covid – with the majority of Americans seeking out remedies for other chronic health conditions – such as asthma and diabetes. America’s a fat nation of addicts, making it fertile ground for drug peddlers offering spurious remedies for morbidities, co-morbidities and Covid.
Covid, however, has been a Godsend for the FUD-merchants. Now we have visual FUD: masks, social distancing signage, and government-paid-for advertising to encourage the take-up of big pharma’s latest ruse: Covid vaxes. America, in addition to its other endemic public health afflictions (with associated pharmacology) has a bit of a problem with asthma. Some 25 million American’s suffer with it. And yet the government’s solution to mitigate Covid risk is to mandate the wearing of masks. Although this, no doubt, helps with the sales of asthma medication and inhalers. Indeed, the global asthma drugs market size is predicted to surpass around $37.3 bn by 2030 from $20.6 bn in 2020, growing at an annual rate of 5.2% from 2021 to 2030 (Source: Precedence Research). Handy that.
And then, of course, there’s the lobbying. It takes work to put the FUD-words into the mouths of the politicians. But mostly they handily oblige. According to this report, “From 1999 to 2018, the pharmaceutical and health product industry recorded $4.7 billion—an average of $233 million per year—in lobbying expenditures at the federal level, more than any other industry.” It continued, “The industry spent $414 million on contributions to candidates in presidential and congressional elections, national party committees, and outside spending groups. Of this amount, $22 million went to presidential candidates and $214 million went to congressional candidates.”
We can only surmise the levels of spending in other jurisdictions. And, of course, it’s not merely direct lobbying that provides the words for policies, legislation and politician virtue signalling – it’s also the NGOs that are effectively in the pockets of the drug companies. And many of the drug companies are in the pockets of the NGOs – with Gates Foundation and Wellcome Trust investing heavily in “innovative” pharmaceutical companies making drugs to treat, you-know, Covid and things.
The extent of public ignorance of the manipulation that’s going on is simply staggering. In the past many of us, myself included, were of the view that Americans were clearly being manipulated. In the land of the free, we concluded, why not let them eat whatever cake was being peddled. It didn’t affect us.
But now it is. Because the same (or same different) pharma companies are now peddling their wares in new ways with the support of bought governments that are mandating their garbage medicants. But here’s a message for them. Go sell your crazy some place else.
Every year the major political parties hold their conferences in the Autumn. In 2020 lockdowns and extended Covid regulations disrupted things. But in 2021 in-person conferences are back. But still the spectre of yet more regulations hang over the proceedings. Covid certification is now required for certain critical workers to keep their jobs. There’s a real prospect that vaccine passports may be required to take part in large events, or even to eat in restaurants.
The continued attacks on personal freedoms and liberty has seen the launch of a new campaign called Together. Launched just a few weeks ago Together has organised events at all the major political conferences. I took the opportunity to see what they were doing at the Reform Party and Conservative Party fringe. Watch the video in full below – featuring Richard Tice, Leader of the Reform Party; Alan Miller of the Together Campaign; and Francis Hoar, the Barrister and Human Rights Lawyer.
The heart of the campaign is the Together Declaration which, in early October 2021, has had around 100,000 signatories. The conferences provided an opportunity for leading parliamentarians, journalists and business-people to sign the declaration…a declaration that includes the following words.
“The glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel — ‘15 million jabs to freedom’ to protect the most vulnerable — soon faded as the goalposts kept on moving. When ‘freedom day’ finally arrived, the accompanying announcement of vaccine passports meant the prospect of returning to ‘normal’ had once again slipped away.
“We are human. We know this makes us seek safety above everything else. We seek it for ourselves, we seek to protect those we love, and we strive for a safe world for our children — and sometimes rules and restrictions can help us to feel safer.
“But being ordered to produce medical certification at pubs, clubs, theatres, on public transport, at schools, universities, or anywhere else, is unwarranted and risks deepening the inequalities already present within our society.”
We tend to kick against things when they try to control us. I remember doubting any religious faith I had when I was coerced, forced even, to attend church – or worse, Sunday School – when I was still in my skinned-knees years. Sunday School was, admittedly, on Sundays but it sure wasn’t school. It involved a surly bunch of kids being talked at by some dour church lay-person who quoted, in monotone, tracts from the bible. It was interminably dull. My chosen method of relieving the tedium was to ask difficult questions like, “where is heaven in relation to the stratosphere,” or “so who made God prior to him making the universe?”. The answers were rarely adequate – and so began my journey to worshipping at the altar of secularism.
And so it has been since, until recently. I even got involved in launching the Conservative Humanist Association at the Conservative Party Conference in 2008 – with celebrity atheist Professor Richard Dawkins. The room was packed for the launch.
Like most secularists I was of the view that society had little need for a moral codex provided by the church. While many in the Conservative Party were still of the view that we needed to respect our Judeo-Christian values, I felt that the church (especially the Anglican Church) had moved so far, politically, to the left that it had lost all credibility. Society, I thought, and specifically the Conservative Party, would protect our freedoms and would create a political-based set of ethical standards to which we could all adhere.
As it turned out I was both right and wrong. I hadn’t fully bargained on woke, nor the Covid cult. Nor had I fully appreciated the extent to which most people have become incredibly intellectually lazy. They expect to be told how to think and behave. And they do so readily. In effect, we have infantilised the adult population. There has been no agenda behind this. Rather, the process of ideas being replaced by messages has been happening for decades – and I’m, to some extent, to blame (or people like me).
Marketing – the process of getting people to desire things and part with money to have those things – is a huge part of the British economy. For a while I even worked with the research division of WPP Group – where we researched the hell out of our target audiences so that we understood, in incredible detail, what messages we needed to use to sell to them. And soon political parties wanted to do this. Marketing messages were boiled down, condensed, tested, re-tested, and put to work. And even God-squad politicians like Tony Blair realised that it was probably best to keep the messaging generic to keep as many on board as possible – to have an optimum addressable market. Politicians became simply parrots repeating the chosen lines, ignoring interviewer questions, and journalists became ‘gotcha’ merchants who sought aberrations from those chosen lines.
Woke emerged from this world. It probably emerged, showed its ugly head, with Cool Britannia – Blair’s revolting pastiche of national pride, consumerism, celebrity and American style schmaltz. He wasn’t one for soundbites, he claimed, while having the hand of history on his shoulder. Offense was avoided. Electorates were maximised. Ideology was deemed toxic. Diversity was in (to maximise the market). And to keep costs down it made sense to reuse campaign tools that had been proven in other similar markets. Populism was out, popularity was in. In short, no one demographic was allowed to define the discourse – because that would mean that the electoral arithmetic wouldn’t work.
And because businesses were using the same techniques, corporatism and government started to look and sound very similar. Corporate-sponsored woke was born.
In George Walden’s book, The New Elites, he argued that one could barely have squeezed a wafer-thin mint between Blair and Cameron in terms of policy positions or delivery. Both cultured faux common-man parlance, pretended to be interested in football and other common-people things, and built the apparatus of secular campaigning around them. Cameron started the process of ‘greening’ the Conservatives (the ultimate secular-globalist nonsense) by making the Conservative logo a tree – dumping the Union flag in the process.
But the secular/globalist golden egg is, without doubt, Covid. The so-called pandemic has allowed Western governments (including the UK government under policy-bereft Johnson) to embrace the version of secular government that is inevitable when the population ceases to realise what ethics are any longer: a command economy.
Secular command economies can only really emerge when there is an emergency excuse to create them. The virus – handily provided by the Chinese – is anthropomorphised into an enemy that we must attack. The language of war is mustered, so that we can attack the enemy in the air, on the beaches, never surrendering. This requires everyone to rally together, not questioning the corporatist solution that’s mustered. And even when it’s clear that the solution – vaccines, masks, lockdowns and the like – doesn’t actually work (because the emergency is nonsense to begin with), non-compliance can be made to look like repellent anti-social behaviour. In short, a new cultish secular religion has been created that is beginning to look and feel like the command-based People’s Republic of China. Even normal democratic processes have been suspended, such is the nature of the emergency. And everyone must be subject to the commands – even children. The King has no clothes, but no-one is prepared to say.
In short, secularism has turned into a monster religion. And because some of us, innately, don’t like religions or regulations or to be told to do certain things (because they are counter-intuitive and freedom-suppressing) we end up rejecting them – but only some of us (those who aren’t hypnotised). Nevertheless, the cultists are everywhere all of a sudden.
Inevitably people will wake up. But only a small percentage of our society (probably the best educated – not necessarily academically – and free thinkers) is currently awake. The awake will need to prod the middle group of partially awake, but drowsy. But in meantime, the ruling elites are drunk on power and are running amok. We’ll need new leaders to make the changes and restore liberty. Because there’s every possibility that the Cultists will create too much mayhem for order to be restored. The government and their cult-members are the problem – not the faux-pandemic.
And I, for one, may have to embrace those Judeo-Christian traditions out of which our freedoms emerged. Uncomfortable, but true.
So the winner of our Twitter caption competition is @ImlahKieran. We asked for the best caption for this (very creepy) image. We all know Joe is a tad confused sometimes. And he’s not sure what day it is or who has come to visit. Tony Blair or Tony Fauci, who knows?
Robin Monotti is an architect, film producer and polymath. Many of us followed him on Twitter before he was unceremoniously de-platformed. He’s now set up camp on Telegram.
His tweets were always erudite and informed. He was a thorn in the side of the government Covid narrative because he used empirical evidence to challenge.
In this half-hour interview I ask Robin about his ousting from social media, his views on human rights issues in the ‘new era’ and his perspectives on vaccine passports and the vaccination of children.
You may be aware of the #Together campaign which has gone viral on social media. This campaign formally launches today, bringing together more than 200 businesses, campaign organisations, religious leaders, and concerned individuals from all walks of life, and across the political spectrum, and right across the UK.
We’re delighted to support the campaign here at TNE.
All these people and groups are now working Together to defend the hard-won rights and freedoms of the people of all four home nations of the UK – being threatened by the introduction of vaccine passports and prospect of digital IDs.
Together we have written the Together Declaration setting out why vaccine passports, or any form of digital ID, are unnecessary, and what impact they would have on the lives and livelihoods of the people of the United Kingdom.
Our campaign includes senior doctors, NHS staff, mental health professionals, faith leaders, legal professionals, entrepreneurs, business leaders, sports people, presenters, musicians, political leaders and campaign groups.
To protect all our freedoms, we know we must do this #Together.
We will need your help to amplify this message everywhere we can later today and would appreciate it if you can distribute the messages of support via your social media, email list and wider network.
Professor Ian Young is Northern Ireland’s Chief Scientific Officer. He also sits on the UK-wide SAGE committee. On Tuesday he appeared on a local BBC radio programme. It proved to be controversial. I’ll explain the controversy shortly. But it’s worth conveying some context because I believe it’s important that a wider audience knows a little more about Young and why his attendance at SAGE meetings has been patchy.
On Tuesday, Young appeared on the BBC Talkback programme, a lunch-time chat and phone-in format programme that is normally hosted by William Crawley – but on this occasion was hosted by Mark Carruthers. None of these characters will be known much to a UK wide audience. They’re both fixtures on the local BBC.
The Talkback format tends to be confrontational. Typically, two ‘commentators’ will appear to represent two sides of an argument. Then the phone-line is opened-up. All hell is let loose. So, the format is like many others on talk radio stations.
However, this format is set aside when Professor Ian Young appears. The questions are soft-ball. They are set-up to provide an opportunity to allow the learned professor to convey key messages: the importance of the Covid-19 vaccination programme, the need for young people to come forward and be vaccinated, the safety of the vaccines, the success emerging from the vaccination programme. Statements of opinion are allowed to be made unchallenged. They hang in the air as fact because the learned professor has conveyed his learnedness from on-high.
But on Tuesday things went slightly awry. A caller called Joe (we only got his Christian name – only invited guests are identified in full so that the callers can be patronised by Crawley or Carruthers) wanted to ask two questions. Joe’s first question was to ask if the Covid-19 vaccines had been licensed. The professor answered that, yes indeed, they had been licensed by the MHRA. But Joe refined his question. “Have they been licensed under emergency use?” The professor took a while to answer and his answer was vague. Joe pressed him to answer. Carruthers intervened and asked, “I don’t know why it matters.” Joe made clear to Carruthers that it did matter. But Carruthers persisted, “but does it actually, really matter?”
Joe seemed incredulous. So was I. I suspected that even the professor was shifting in his seat, but he’d been let off this one. Carruthers pressed Joe to move on to his second question. Joe asked, “Are they experimental?”
The professor answered with a generic answer – a slippery answer – that many drugs are subject to ongoing trial even when they are being administered. It didn’t sound very convincing. It didn’t seem to be an adequate answer when he and we know that millions of people are being injected with these ‘vaccines’ – could it possibly be the case that they are all subject to a huge experiment? Joe pressed on, incredulous that the Professor was answering with stock answers when he just wanted to know were these vaccines being trialled, were they at trial, when was the trial end-date? And Carruthers interjected again, “we’re not sitting in a court here,” he pointed out. Joe’s final contribution, on-air, before being ejected from the show was that the professor was a “proven liar”. Carruthers made clear, after Joe’s exit stage left, that he had no idea what Joe was referring to.
One reason why Northern Ireland had no representation on the SAGE committee for the first few months of the year is that Professor Ian Young was on leave for health reasons – pending a decision by the high court relating to an attempt on his part to block an investigation by the general medical council into evidence he gave at the original inquest relating to the death of nine-year-old Claire Roberts. Claire Roberts’ death was examined by the Hyponatraemia Inquiry – a public inquiry that was set up to examine the deaths of five children and that reported in 2018. A new inquest into Claire’s death was ordered by the inquiry after the chair of the inquiry said there had been a cover-up to “avoid scrutiny” by the Belfast Health Trust. The inquest found that Claire’s cause of death was an overdose of fluids administered by the hospital. The inquiry report made clear that there had been a cover-up by the Trust to avoid scrutiny. In fact, the report was nothing short of damning. Young’s attempts to block the inquiry by the GMC failed.
After the inquest, Claire’s father said, “We as Claire’s parents have a clear message for the Belfast Trust, the implicated doctors and the chief medical officer Dr Michael McBride – hang your heads in shame.” Dr McBride and Professor Young now lead the charge in terms of the Vaccine roll-out in Northern Ireland.
The question, of course, is why Professor Young and Dr McBride (and other public health ‘experts’ in England, Scotland and Wales) are given a clear-run by the media when it comes to Covid response and the vaccination programme? Perhaps the BBC is acting under severe restraint. The BBC provided very detailed coverage – and broadcast time, even nationally – to the Hyponatraemia Inquiry and the second inquest into Claire’s death. But now we seem to need a member of the public to sneak on to a talk show, providing evasive answers to researchers’ screening questions, to make it on air and ask difficult questions.
And Joe was effective. But other questions need to be asked. How can Professor Young and Dr McBride still be in positions of power given the extent to which their professional reputations been damaged by the Hyponatraemia Inquiry? To what extent can we give any credibility to their expert advice when expert advice was used as a tool to cover-up catastrophic failings on the part of NHS hospitals supposedly treating (but killing) children?
In addition, questions also need to be asked about the independence of advice being given by senior UK public health professionals in relation to Covid-19 vaccines. Professor Young is very keen to stress the importance of the vaccination programme. Since 2008 Professor Young has been a Professor at the Centre for Public Health, Queen’s University Belfast. The centre has been a major recipient of funding from the Wellcome Trust. As has the Wolfson Institute at Queen’s. Wellcome, and the Bill Gates Foundation, are heavily invested into vaccines as the means of ‘escape’ from the ‘pandemic’. However, the only solution that seems to be on offer is pharmacological and fear driven. The loss of freedom and the loss of our civil society seems to be a price worth paying according to the NHS and its public mouthpieces. It’s a narrative that’s never challenged.
When Young and his peers in the other regions claim that the vaccine is resulting in lower hospitalisations they are referring to a vaccine roll-out that started in December last year (targeting the most vulnerable) but resulted in a pretty sharp spike in excess deaths in January 2021 – many of whom were very elderly in care homes – the first to be vaccinated. I’m not claiming causality but it’s an odd coincidence.
However, Young has little hesitation in claiming vaccine causality for the sharp drop in Covid hospitalisations this Summer. He fails to mention that respiratory diseases (and hospitalisation resulting from them) always fall off in Summer. It happens every single year. Meanwhile deaths ‘at home’ with non-Covid conditions have peaked massively – as the NHS waiting lists have reached all-time highs and GPs are still refusing to see patients in-surgery.
There are too many vested interests and boys’ clubs at play in the Covid scandal. Many of our centres of research are essentially owned and funded by big pharma under the guise of Wellcome and Gates. The narrative that a pharma solution is the only solution does not have consensus and must be challenged. The argument that we need to be masked in Northern Ireland while masks have been dumped in England, makes no sense. Many think it’s theatre for the stupid. And many think that vaccine passports are morally repugnant – it’s a valid position, it deserves an airing, despite what Young, Vallance, Johnson, Javid or Gates think.
So we must applaud the Joes of this world. Challenging these narratives is what we must do. This nonsense and these egos have to be challenged, constantly. Because the alternative is too repulsive to contemplate. The parents of Claire Roberts claimed there were “no alarm bells” when they brought Claire to the Royal Victoria Hospital for what they thought was “just a tummy bug”. The experts at the hospital left Claire dead. More experts were called in to cover-up the failings. Remember that in future when you hear medical experts on the radio, telling you what’s best.
We all know the form by now. The government leaks a new draconian policy position – the next iteration in the progression to towards total control – and there is outrage, especially across Twitter. None of this outrage is reported in the mainstream media. The BBC treats the idea of vaccine passports for young people to gain entry to nightclubs as perfectly common sense – to address the fact that young people seem reticent to get a jab that offers them zero utility and may threaten their health.
But it’s encouraging that our “young people” – or some of them, at least – have enough free-thinking abilities to judge for themselves. Illegal raves are an alternative to nightclubs with overpriced drinks, after all.
But now our mop-haired Prime Minister is apparently “raging” that the young ones are clearly planning such evasion tactics. Therefore, he’ll mandate double-jabbing to allow university students to return to college. Except, of course, most who have just completed their academic year probably had little opportunity to set foot on campus anyway. Instead, in return for fees of over £10,000 a year, university students got to attend a few Zoom calls to hear a few lectures. Frankly they may have done better on YouTube.
In the 2021 National Student Survey 53% of students were less than content with the quality of learning and teaching through the COVID pandemic. 58% of students felt that the university or college had not taken adequate steps to support their mental wellbeing. And it’s hardly surprising that their mental health is taking such knocks with such a shockingly poor service from our centres of learning, awful value for money and a perception that university lecturers regard actual physical students as disease vectors. Safeism and scientism now walk the virtual cloisters.
The government’s pathetic attempts to scare the young into vaccine compliance will not work. People – especially the free thinking – abhor government diktat. The more raging the Prime Minister becomes the more young people (supported by their parents) will dig their heels in. And, frankly, why would anyone in their right mind (never mind highly intelligent university students) be suddenly coerced into taking a vaccine that’s nothing of the sort? Vaccines have been tested. The Covid-19 “clot-shots” are being tested on vast swathes of the population and the adverse reactions (based on the so-called yellow Card system) are significant. According to the government’s own data, “as of 14 July 2021, for the UK, 91,567 Yellow Cards have been reported for the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine, 222,291 have been reported for the COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca, 10,109 for the COVID-19 Vaccine Moderna and 939 have been reported where the brand of the vaccine was not specified.”
It is, of course, the case that people will report adverse reactions and the numbers of reports will be higher when such a very large number of people are receiving the shots. The government lays this point on thick. However, this level of adverse reaction is very high in relative and absolute terms – especially within the relatively young cohorts. These young people do not face any material threat from the virus yet are exposing themselves to risk from the experimental vaccine. To be mandated to receive a medical procedure in these circumstances – in order to receive an education that they are paying for (often by taking on a debt burden) – is utterly incomprehensible in a supposedly free democratic society. It is fundamentally immoral.
We know the form. The government rolls out one oppressive measure only to take it a stage further. Lockdown, extended lockdown, lockdown again, mask mandates, vaccine mandates, vaccine passports. Soon, no doubt, they’ll start building social credit systems into vaccine passports and next the passports will be the delivery platform for a central bank digital currency. We get the drift and we don’t like it.
The chain of escalation must be broken. The first steps towards a national ID and digital vaccine passport system are unacceptable to us who value freedom. We see through the leaks, we know where this is going. It must stop, now.