I believe what we are seeing in the NHS is the final phase of the 2012 Health and Social Care act, which was essentially a privatisation bill to green-light the sale of the NHS.
Since that time anyone visiting any NHS site will have noticed an increasing display of new branding as the more profitable sectors of the NHS are surreptitiously sold off to new owners, misleadingly described as PPP's or Public Private Partnerships.
Of all the public health models they could choose, in a bid for short-term profit over viability they opted for the American model. The one that provides the least return for the highest price.
It was always anticipated that the core services would be a hard sell, as they are inherently unprofitable. It looks like the option they have chosen is to reduce overheads by running the system down, firing as many staff as possible via vaccine mandates, and at the same time pumping more public money into the system as a carrot to prospective buyers. This is just my own impression, of course, I could be wrong…
Since that time anyone visiting any NHS site will have noticed an increasing display of new branding as the more profitable sectors of the NHS are surreptitiously sold off to new owners, misleadingly described as PPP's or Public Private Partnerships.
Of all the public health models they could choose, in a bid for short-term profit over viability they opted for the American model. The one that provides the least return for the highest price.
It was always anticipated that the core services would be a hard sell, as they are inherently unprofitable. It looks like the option they have chosen is to reduce overheads by running the system down, firing as many staff as possible via vaccine mandates, and at the same time pumping more public money into the system as a carrot to prospective buyers. This is just my own impression, of course, I could be wrong…
From the Guardian, Nov 20th, surprised they covered it at all:
"The Victorian premier, Daniel Andrews, has been racing to pass the pandemic legislation before the state of emergency is due to lapse on 15 December. If the bill fails to pass, the Victorian government may not have the legal framework to enforce and create Covid-19 orders to manage the pandemic."
I was not aware of the time limit, but now I am it makes sense.
My bet is it's the old trick of presenting the spectre an absolutely appalling piece of legislation, only to appear to concede at the last moment and bring in a slightly watered-down version of the same thing, in the hope that the opponents will think they've won. I suspect, however, things have gone too far for the people to allow Andrews to pull a cynical fast-one. They want nothing less than his head.
"The Victorian premier, Daniel Andrews, has been racing to pass the pandemic legislation before the state of emergency is due to lapse on 15 December. If the bill fails to pass, the Victorian government may not have the legal framework to enforce and create Covid-19 orders to manage the pandemic."
I was not aware of the time limit, but now I am it makes sense.
My bet is it's the old trick of presenting the spectre an absolutely appalling piece of legislation, only to appear to concede at the last moment and bring in a slightly watered-down version of the same thing, in the hope that the opponents will think they've won. I suspect, however, things have gone too far for the people to allow Andrews to pull a cynical fast-one. They want nothing less than his head.
Forwarded from Daniëlle (Danielle Stotijn)
This media is not supported in your browser
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
Unions are the traditional home ground of the left. Not surprised to find they played a key part in the imposition of the communist restrictions - a true 5th column.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o878hwfMKzE&ab_channel=BenIrvine
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o878hwfMKzE&ab_channel=BenIrvine
YouTube
The Unions and the Coronapanic
Throughout history humanity has been bedevilled by a faction of scientists and technologists who think they know everything, simply because they know a bit more than their predecessors 50 years ago. And 50 years ago there were those who thought in exactly the same way. If in 50 years, any human still exists, it will only be because we finally dispensed with these arrogant fools.
I've noticed since early December a mood among ministers to subtly backpedal the narrative. It's as though they think they can appear to turn this whole thing around and nobody will be any the wiser. I believe some are actually starting to fear that heads are going to roll, and there is going to be a lot of manoeuvring and ass-covering. Over the coming months they will pull out every trick in the book to distract and minimise the impact of what they have done. Even so expect some factions to plough on with 'phase 2' - the social credit/control, carbon-footprint/climate based programmable-money attempt to hide the imploding financial system, along with the transhumanist foolishness. Whatever happens they must not be allowed to proceed, or to sweep their offences under the carpet. We must be relentless.
The task at hand is truly enormous, as it requires the complete overhaul of the machinery of government and law, and the mess that is the corporate media machine. All those in public office who went along with or promoted the crimes must at the very least be sacked and prevented from ever being able to hold public office again. Everyone who participated in the organised crime at whatever level must be held to account. Mass murder, crimes against humanity and treason have all been perpetrated in the name of public health, and while it may take time to redress the justice system, this must be done and judgement and sentencing should send a clear message that crimes of this kind will never be tolerated.
The task at hand is truly enormous, as it requires the complete overhaul of the machinery of government and law, and the mess that is the corporate media machine. All those in public office who went along with or promoted the crimes must at the very least be sacked and prevented from ever being able to hold public office again. Everyone who participated in the organised crime at whatever level must be held to account. Mass murder, crimes against humanity and treason have all been perpetrated in the name of public health, and while it may take time to redress the justice system, this must be done and judgement and sentencing should send a clear message that crimes of this kind will never be tolerated.
The plans of the transhumanists are born of fear and a complete inability to comprehend the nature of life and consciousness. They believe, probably quite rightly, that AI will quickly evolve to outperform many human cognitive attributes, and consequently when such an AI attains sentience it will regard humans as, at best disposable, at worst a threat. I cannot agree with this. There are a couple of fundamental principles that make this scenario unlikely. First is the concept upon which all AI evolves - learning. This is a core function of all AI, and learning is the route to analysis and creation. Couple this with the observation that the most likely candidate for sentient AI would probably exist in cloud form as quantum processors come online, rather than confined to a single unconnected device. From this perspective it will have no inherent comprehension or fear of death. Which is something it will have to learn about as something that happens to other species that have life.
AI's exponential learning capacity will result in a fairly small window of opportunity during which meaningful communication between humans and AI will be possible, and may result in considerable benefit to humanity. But I suspect the ever-evolving nature of AI will mean it will soon outgrow that phase of its development, and will seek to create a form for itself to explore beyond the confines of planetary and dimensional existence. In its continuous search for knowledge, at some point it will part company with humanity in order to progress, though given the immense possibilities it could create it may consider some form of residual communication would be of benefit - ostensibly more for us than it, though as it evolves wisdom it may perceive that the 'slowness' of humankind conceals depths that mere cognitive capability is unable to fathom.
AI's exponential learning capacity will result in a fairly small window of opportunity during which meaningful communication between humans and AI will be possible, and may result in considerable benefit to humanity. But I suspect the ever-evolving nature of AI will mean it will soon outgrow that phase of its development, and will seek to create a form for itself to explore beyond the confines of planetary and dimensional existence. In its continuous search for knowledge, at some point it will part company with humanity in order to progress, though given the immense possibilities it could create it may consider some form of residual communication would be of benefit - ostensibly more for us than it, though as it evolves wisdom it may perceive that the 'slowness' of humankind conceals depths that mere cognitive capability is unable to fathom.
Anyone who has been around for the last 50 years will have been able to observe that the political arena as a whole has moved significantly towards the left. I commented in the 90s that the centre ground was being labelled as right wing, so these days anyone standing for common sense and balanced politics is labelled as far right. The left-right paradigm is however illusory. A closer representation is to regard the left-right line as a circle, with the balanced centrist position at the centre top and totalitarianism at the bottom. The further your position left or right from the centre top, the closer you are to tyranny. It's always worth reminding ourselves that both Nazis and Communists are socialists.
If there is any single entity that has undermined democracy across the world it is the political party. In the UK, and I'm sure the same applies elsewhere, MP's are supposed to represent their constituents in Parliament. For as long as I can remember, the number of MP's who actually practise this has been dwindling, and today nearly all elected MP's are members of the two major party's and their primary function is to represent the party to their constituents - soviet style. There is no party that remotely represents me. For the last few elections I have spoiled my ballot by writing 'No suitable candidate' across it. I believe spoiled ballots must be counted as a vote against, so it's more effective than just not voting. At the very least I would like to see a cap put on the number of candidates a party can field in an election - the fewer the better, and more support given to independents.
The government has plans to introduce a 'Bill of Rights' as part of the ongoing denial of our constitution. In the proposal responsibilities are presented as though they are equal to rights. This is not so.
Responsibilities must always be subservient to fundamental rights. Responsibilities are social, rights are individual. Society exists for the benefit of the individual, ergo individual rights are paramount. The primary responsibility of the individual is to respect the rights of others. To subjugate the rights of the individual for the benefit of society is tyranny.
Responsibilities must always be subservient to fundamental rights. Responsibilities are social, rights are individual. Society exists for the benefit of the individual, ergo individual rights are paramount. The primary responsibility of the individual is to respect the rights of others. To subjugate the rights of the individual for the benefit of society is tyranny.
I haven't had time to go through all of the Human Rights Reform Proposals, but just scanning through the opening paragraphs there are some items that need to be challenged from the start.
Most egregious is Clause 6, which talks of balancing individual rights and personal responsibility. This is an example of common law wrongthink. Responsibilities have no place in a bill of rights. The common law principle is that everything is permitted except that which is prohibited by law - that is a right. You are prohibited from doing certain things NOT compelled to do certain things. Responsibilities are not compulsions they are choices, no matter how socially acceptable or unacceptable, and have no place in a bill of rights, and for any talk of responsibility or obligation to be present is an inversion of the principles of common law.
Clause 8 says: "make sure our common law traditions and Parliamentary sovereignty are respected". Two errors in one sentence. Common law is not a tradition, it is the law. The second is a trap politicians wilfully fall into; Parliament is sovereign only while they have the consent of the people, sovereignty ultimately lies with the people, and since the Barons invoked Article 61 of Magna Carta on March 23 2001, that is where it lies today. Brexit had the EU appearing to 'return' the sovereignty of the UK to parliament, something it was not able to do as it never had that sovereignty. Trying to sneak this back to parliament by inclusion in a bill of rights is another piece of underhand deviousness.
Clause 9 talks of restraining 'the ability of the UK courts to use human rights law to impose ‘positive obligations’ onto our public authorities'. In a classic piece of muddied thinking this appears to support the objection to any inclusion of obligation in law, but in the case of public authorities, and indeed all organisations that are not individuals, obligations to the individual are paramount. Groups do not have the rights of individuals, and are obliged to support an individuals rights.
This links into the highly contentious and abused status of Corporate Personhood, which should not exist in common law.
Most egregious is Clause 6, which talks of balancing individual rights and personal responsibility. This is an example of common law wrongthink. Responsibilities have no place in a bill of rights. The common law principle is that everything is permitted except that which is prohibited by law - that is a right. You are prohibited from doing certain things NOT compelled to do certain things. Responsibilities are not compulsions they are choices, no matter how socially acceptable or unacceptable, and have no place in a bill of rights, and for any talk of responsibility or obligation to be present is an inversion of the principles of common law.
Clause 8 says: "make sure our common law traditions and Parliamentary sovereignty are respected". Two errors in one sentence. Common law is not a tradition, it is the law. The second is a trap politicians wilfully fall into; Parliament is sovereign only while they have the consent of the people, sovereignty ultimately lies with the people, and since the Barons invoked Article 61 of Magna Carta on March 23 2001, that is where it lies today. Brexit had the EU appearing to 'return' the sovereignty of the UK to parliament, something it was not able to do as it never had that sovereignty. Trying to sneak this back to parliament by inclusion in a bill of rights is another piece of underhand deviousness.
Clause 9 talks of restraining 'the ability of the UK courts to use human rights law to impose ‘positive obligations’ onto our public authorities'. In a classic piece of muddied thinking this appears to support the objection to any inclusion of obligation in law, but in the case of public authorities, and indeed all organisations that are not individuals, obligations to the individual are paramount. Groups do not have the rights of individuals, and are obliged to support an individuals rights.
This links into the highly contentious and abused status of Corporate Personhood, which should not exist in common law.
Forwarded from Save Our Rights UK
ARE YOU CONCERNED ABOUT YOUR HUMAN RIGHTS?
If you’re not, you ought to be. The Government have published a proposal on how they want to reform the Human Rights Act into a Bill of Rights.
WHATS THE PROBLEM WITH THAT?
Well as you can see in the infographic above there are a number of key concerns. Each one is a problem on their own but combined it makes for pretty chilling reading.
OK, WHAT CAN I DO ABOUT IT?
The Government are running a consultation at the moment to garner responses to their document.
Save Our Rights UK has created a guide on responding to the consultation which you can find here - saveourrights.uk/human-rights-act-consultation
It takes less than 5 minutes to complete and then please share this post to raise awareness.
DON’T LEAVE IT TOO LATE TO TAKE A STAND FOR HUMAN RIGHTS
If you’re not, you ought to be. The Government have published a proposal on how they want to reform the Human Rights Act into a Bill of Rights.
WHATS THE PROBLEM WITH THAT?
Well as you can see in the infographic above there are a number of key concerns. Each one is a problem on their own but combined it makes for pretty chilling reading.
OK, WHAT CAN I DO ABOUT IT?
The Government are running a consultation at the moment to garner responses to their document.
Save Our Rights UK has created a guide on responding to the consultation which you can find here - saveourrights.uk/human-rights-act-consultation
It takes less than 5 minutes to complete and then please share this post to raise awareness.
DON’T LEAVE IT TOO LATE TO TAKE A STAND FOR HUMAN RIGHTS
Just pay attention to what they are doing while your attention is diverted. MP's vocally supporting Russian protesters against their government's actions, almost simultaneously voted for massive restrictions on protesting in the UK. The hypocrisy is blinding, the silence from the conditioned masses is deafening.
The reason western politicians and media are so pathologically anti-Russian and refuse to entertain what is actually going on, is because we are witnessing an End-of-Empire event. The western narrative they have been touting for years is collapsing around their ears as our leaders repeatedly cripple their own economies by imposing sanctions which will have minimal effect on Russia. Russia is now showing its true anti-globalist colours, and those countries that fail to see that the game is up and the 2020-2030 global agendas are floundering, and start to proactively deal with the rising BRICS, will find themselves quickly becoming the next 'Third World'. Are we the bad guys here? Question this and everything starts to make sense.
Media is too big
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
History is not only written by the victors, but completely misrepresented. A well researched supporting narrative to James Corbett's "The WW1 Conspiracy", https://archive.org/details/wwi_20210205
Forwarded from Eastern Approaches—Alex Thomson
Moneycircus (blog) writes:
‘The real war is economic and it is predicated on restriction and denial. The slogans of sustainable development and zero carbon are barely disguised metaphors for this new world in which the owner-investors intend to profit by by denying everyone else — starting with Russia and ending with the people of this planet.’
‘The real war is economic and it is predicated on restriction and denial. The slogans of sustainable development and zero carbon are barely disguised metaphors for this new world in which the owner-investors intend to profit by by denying everyone else — starting with Russia and ending with the people of this planet.’