Posted by Curt on 5 March, 2023 at 10:56 am. 1 comment.



The week’s Lockdown files show Boris Johnson feared Britain’s second lockdown because he knew the death data was ‘very wrong’; he also wanted to lift the restrictions, but the public ‘wasn’t ready’.
They also reveal that masks in schools were introduced to avoid an argument with Nicola Sturgeon, that care homes were neglected, and the inhumane rules that kept married couples apart were discussed but, despite their devastating effects, were kept anyhow. Why? Because there was no one to challenge the power-hungry government machinery that was out of its depth.
Rules of six were introduced without evidence, but ministers went ahead anyway – it was easier to communicate than a rule of seven, eight or nine.
It was clear that these policies were being made on the hoof, but a silence of science meant they essentially went unchallenged.
When we pointed out that the lockdown in November 2020 was based on misleading data, something Boris Johnson said was “very wrong,” the government still went ahead.
The Lockdown files are littered with flippant remarks, derogatory comments and disdain for the public. Civil servants mocked quarantined holidaymakers, and politicians were “laughing and joking about locking us up.”
But the Lockdown files also show the results of putting medical decisions in the hands of people with no medical decision-making experience or expertise, so long as they were “nice chaps” and went to the right school.
They also reveal what happens when you have impotent advisors who do not challenge the decisions and scientists with ideological viewpoints based on engineering fear and repressive measures. Looking back, ministers such as Gavin Willamson wonder whether they should have resigned – the answer is yes, but it’s a bit late now.
But all along, ministers thought it was “brilliant” the police were fining the public for covid law breaches. But these were ridiculous, repressive laws that were bad for everyone.
We tried our best to counter the corrosive effects of social engineering. We at least managed to stave off the Christmas 2021 “omicron variant” lockdown.
But, emergency powers afforded by the coronavirus act gave power to just a few people and their merry band of advisors who were drunk on the power.
Restrictions, lockdowns and travel measures changed over 200 times in 2020. No one could keep up with the changes. By the time one measure had come in, it was onto the next. For example, the rules on going out – to a pub or a restaurant – were changed 20 times up to September 2020. Many didn’t know the rules and didn’t care. Some statements like “closing the borders with Wales” appeared to have been taken from an episode of Fawlty Towers.
In 2020, Sir Graham Brady MP tabled an amendment requiring a Parliamentary vote “as soon as reasonably practicable” for any new covid measures. He understood the pervasive problems of the coronavirus act that were so damaging to society.
It handed control to the likes of Matt Hancock, who, while revelling in the attention, were threatening the public with £10,000 fines.
Contrast this with Sweden, whose constitution ‘prevents interference by ministers of government in affairs that are assigned to various public authorities.’
The Swedish public agencies are set up outside of central government control. So, instead of the UK system, where agencies and their civil servants act as stooges to prop up the government’s inadequacies, they get on with doing their job in the public’s interest.
Consequently, the Swedish government had limited power to intervene in the ongoing business of its public agencies. A light-touch COVID response was all that was needed to steer us through the pandemic.
This is why we now call for legislation to prevent the Coronavirus Act and any similar Act from ever being enacted again. To avoid individual ministers from having the power to intervene directly in the day-to-day lives of their citizens.

Read more

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x