As the various autumn campaigns to poison and degrade the populace get underway, it is apposite to look back at some of the choice parliamentary language used on the subect.

In 1902, Lord Newton spoke in the House of Lords, in a debate to remove the 'conscientious objection' clause from the Vaccination Act 1898.

Do read the debate in full, for it is eye-opening, and it makes today's lawmakers look like a bunch of pansies.

'It proposes merely to repeal the conscientious objection clause of the Act of 1898. I do not think there is any necessity to enlarge upon the advantage of vaccination.

To my mind, one of the most convincing testimonies in its favour is that in times of epidemic like the present the anti-vaccinator is silent, and, if current reports are to be believed, instead of propagating his pernicious doctrine, occasionally utilizes the opportunity in order to get vaccinated himself.

I do not believe that there is any sympathy in any part of the House with the person, known as the conscientious objector. If sympathy has occasionally been expressed for him on public platforms, I believe it to be sympathy of a purely platonic kind, for many of those who have advocated his cause have insisted on their own households being vaccinated and have been vaccinated themselves.

I believe the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has gone even further, and caused all the officials in the Law Courts under his control to be vaccinated, and I am not aware that his Lordship has made any exception in favour of the conscientious objector or anybody else.

I am convinced that those persons who were responsible for the creation of the conscientious objector are thoroughly ashamed of him. Nobody likes him, and many hate him. Why not, therefore, take this opportunity of getting rid of him?

If the Government are not willing to take this opportunity of getting rid of him, it can only be for the reason that they are afraid of him. We know that conscience makes cowards of us all, and the conscientious objector seems to have stricken with terror the strongest Government of modern times. I will recall the circumstances under which the conscientious objector came into existence.

In 1898 the Government of the day, which was practically indistinguishable from the present Government, brought in a most admirable Bill, which was introduced in the other House and met with an excellent reception. It is important to notice that at this early period no mention was made of the conscientious objector.'

👇

https://hansard.parliament.uk/lords/1902-02-17/debates/6f393147-522c-45da-a2a2-0256a1cb7211/VaccinationAct1898AmendmentBillHl

And, from a century prior, James Gillray's cartoon of 1802, showing the effects of vaccination on the people to the right of the scene.

More rhyming history, as Twain would have said.

👇

https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/resources/victorian-health-reform/source-1-engraving/

Eric Adams never watched Robocop to the end, it seems.

👇

https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/eric-adams-debuts-420-pound-robot-assigned-to-patrol-nyc-subway-station/4704333/

The latest piece from Iain Davis, for UK Column. As you would expect, it is very detailed and has a special focus on the Clintons. Very much worth reading and disseminating.

👇🏼

https://www.ukcolumn.org/blogs/why-would-anyone-trust-the-united-nations-regime

The passing of the Elections Act 2022 seems to have resulted in this year's Annual Canvass being conducted with greater vigour. It's almost as though Electoral Services have been out drinking with the lads from TV Licensing.

For any 12th Man fans, the wording does conjure images of Richie Benaud's suits which—at least—makes it another thing to be able to laugh at.

👇🏼

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2022/37/contents

Sarah Breeden is Deputy Governor of the Bank of England and she came up short when asked a fairly simply question about the 'programmable' nature of a Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) by Danny Kruger MP.

Footage of this exchange is HERE.

The line of Kruger's questioning should not have come as a surprise; he gave Treasury Minister Andrew Griffith a dose of the same medicine in January, footage of which is HERE.

If you haven't heard of Sarah Breeden, you may find her short piece on climate change for the World Economic Forum offers some context, which you can see HERE.

Ole Bill goes further on his mistrust of trees, by suggesting that growing them is a complete waste of time.

At 26:30, he is asked about how he practices what he preaches, the answer to which he concludes by asking if he is a science person or an idiot.

Though the two are not mutually exclusive, I think I know which I'd plump for.

👇

https://youtu.be/wmBj-5owOLA?si=iOZYnH7Im8VWtWK7

Joke of the week.

Miriam Finch on the key points associated with GB News's most recent collision with the lower rungs of the ladder:

'It's not incidental that Andrew Tate constantly parades around the place half-naked, or that Russell Brand is famed for acquiring the title of "shagger of the year", or that Laurence Fox declared recently he'd be well up for attending a blood-drinking ceremony involving a goat and a virgin.'

In the heat of the battle for freedom of speech, it is occasionally forgotten that people are still liable to say things that are not much worth listening to!

👇🏼

https://miriaf.co.uk/are-you-foxy-enough-for-laurence/

For a very simple and compelling take on the nutritional requirements of the human body—and the great efforts made to subvert this by government and industry—may I recommend listening to Dr Natasha Campbell-McBride speaking to James Delingpole?

What is your take on what she says?

👇🏼

https://www.podbean.com/ew/pb-f26g7-1479110

I've just collared a G4S cash courier for a chat. A friendly cove, and very willing to talk.

Though he hadn't the figures to substantiate this, he believes that the circulation of cash has been increasing, for a number of years, and that it continues to do so.

Interestingly, he was unaware of the proposed CBDC and its inherent dangers. He is no longer unaware.

You may have seen that the case against Isabel Vaughan-Spruce—who twice fell foul of the 'no prayer law'—has been dropped, with CPS providing no evidence against her. That no evidence was provided could have been for a host of reasons and does not indicate that CPS are taking a stand against absurd legislation (unfortunately).

Due to the publicity surrounding this case, and others, the Home Secretary has attempted to score some political capital from it, as you would expect. She wrote to Chief Constables in early Sep, to explain that wokery within the ranks isn't on. The letter will be posted below this, so you can see for yourself. At no point does Braverman do anything but shape her words to make it look like she is shaking things up. Each of her points is really just a reminder, and not a change to the way that policing will be conducted.

How she deals with the topic of silent prayer is a reminder to us of why people become politicians. She writes 'And lastly, it is worth remembering that silent prayer, in itself, is not unlawful', which is of no consequence at all. There was no suggestion that silent prayer, 'in itself', was unlawful; the contention arises around the provisions in the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, which allow for Public Spaces Protection Orders. It is these orders that may prohibit silent prayer, in specific places, at specific times. Braverman has offered nothing, yet she seeks to give the impression that she has overturned this dystopian aberration.

What is curious, though, is ADF's reporting on this. ADF has been defending those that have been arrested within the so-called 'buffer zones' for silent prayer, so they know the ins and outs of the situation. They appear to be suggesting that the Home Secretary's comments are, in some way, a victory—which they are most certainly not.

If you would like more background on this story, I recorded a podcast for UK Column on Isabel Vaughan-Spruce's situation some months ago.

If it was a lone 16 year-old that felled the sycamore on Hadrian's Wall, then they've not been wasting their early years entirely. Felling a tree of that girth requires a whopping blade on a chainsaw and it's extremely dangerous and difficult. However, the images show that it's been done by someone extremely proficient, with a big old chainsaw.

So, it wasn't some bored twerp, it was someone who had the requisite skills and confidence; cock it up and you're dead.

The tree and the gap it sits in have been immortalised by countless photographs and, of course, the Robin Hood film of 1991. Whilst I agree that it is sad to have had an iconic view changed, it's somewhat ironic that there has been such an outpouring of emotion.

The sycamore tree is not native to this country. It was introduced and it has been very successfully colonising these lands. Justifiably, it is considered a threat to native species, which it outbreeds and outgrows, and even its name, Acer pseudoplatanus, suggests trickery. When Robin Hood came upon it (on the silver screen), he found mistletoe in the branches; a parasite. The other thing about sycamore is that it grows incredibly quickly and it would be almost certain that something will spring up from the cut base.

It's worth watching the scene from Prince of Thieves, in which Robin Hood teases the Moor for his integrity and sense of chivalry. Of course, they go on to learn a lot from each other, the most important of which is how to reject tyranny and live a good life outside of 'the system'.

"We would not allow them to be sold in this country if they were not safe."

So said Therése Coffey, about Roundup, in 2018. Doubtless she has been able to use the same phrase about other products since early 2021, because she knows masses about science.

This month, she has come out to confirm that glyphosate will continue to be applied liberally to as many parts of the foodchain as possible.

Neither the government nor the food industry has any interest in a healthy environment or a healthy public.

A chink in the clouds?

'Worries about low uptake in the capital saw councils send letters to parents in recent months warning unvaccinated children may be excluded from school for three weeks in the event of an outbreak in their classroom.'

Possible win-win scenario; no toxins and no indoctrination.