Here's another fine example of how the State-funded news-outlets dowses important information from the public and also
offers evidence of how a virus has been heavily politicised. If it was a racial issue and the assumed victim was of African
descent, they'd be commentary. If an incident portrayed females has weak and helpless, they'd be fawning explanations
of how a Government didn't care.
But to drive the young to the Jab-cages for inoculation against the sniffles, the media merely report it with po-faces.
The UK's Conservative Government decreed on Monday -19th July that England could forego the restictions caused by
the flu and as people readied themselves for some form of normality, the Prime Minister announced from his isolation
-just seventeen hours before 'Freedom Day' began, that vaccination certificates would become mandatory for large
gatherings.
Lucy -once again, snatched the ball away as Charlie Brown was about to punt.
Obviously aiming the directive at nightclubs, these establishments responded that they would not police such a ruling
and in reality, have no lawful right to do so. Personal medical history is not accessible to anyone without permission from
the person of that history. Training in understanding confidential medical information is essential and a cost where trust can
be expensive.
Remember, these 'passports' aren't just for people who've had the two jabs, they're for people who can't have the jab because
of particular personal medical reasons or have an 'inbuilt immunity' Another new expression used in the media world.
Boris Johnson said:
“I should serve notice now that by the end of September, when all over-18s will have had their chance to be double-jabbed,
we are planning to make full vaccination the condition of entry to nightclubs and other venues where large crowds gather."
Addressing younger people directly, Johnson said: “Some of life’s most important pleasures and opportunities are likely
to be increasingly dependent on vaccination.”
Forty-three Conservative members of Boris Johnson's party revolted against the announcement and even now -Friday
23rd July, the outrage is still on the back-burner in the established media circles. The questions of 'what would be deemed
a large gathering in the future' and with the announcement that certain employees and politicians would be exempt from
following rules the rest of the public are supposed to adhere to, would their access into large gatherings be impeded too?
The lame-stream media have ducked responding to the announcement in the same manner they've never questioned the
asinine rational reasons of why a society is being ridiculed in previous futile announcements.
Aerospace engineers were always exempt from any flight restrictions and of course, certain Journalists too.
A member of Parliament can enter the House of Commons regardless of restrictions installed elsewhere.
Employees at food-supply warehouses will not need to isolate if their cell-phones makes a pinging sound.
Euro officials for the recent soccer tournament didn't have to self-isolate for ten days when visiting the UK.
And the virus knows all these rules.
The outcry in the media is still minimal and I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop on what I believe was a daring test-balloon.
It was never about a disease, it was about gathering information. Information that has potential benefits for any future agenda.
Relevant data on the old was never their goal, their eye was on the young from the very start.
From The Times -a paper that uses the ruse that many of the Democrat-loving media-outlets in the US applies. Ignore the
statement, write about the response from an opposing political party. I think Dan Bongino calls it 'Republicans Pounce'!
![[Image: attachment.php?aid=9671]](http://rogue-nation3.com/attachment.php?aid=9671)
offers evidence of how a virus has been heavily politicised. If it was a racial issue and the assumed victim was of African
descent, they'd be commentary. If an incident portrayed females has weak and helpless, they'd be fawning explanations
of how a Government didn't care.
But to drive the young to the Jab-cages for inoculation against the sniffles, the media merely report it with po-faces.
The UK's Conservative Government decreed on Monday -19th July that England could forego the restictions caused by
the flu and as people readied themselves for some form of normality, the Prime Minister announced from his isolation
-just seventeen hours before 'Freedom Day' began, that vaccination certificates would become mandatory for large
gatherings.
Lucy -once again, snatched the ball away as Charlie Brown was about to punt.
Obviously aiming the directive at nightclubs, these establishments responded that they would not police such a ruling
and in reality, have no lawful right to do so. Personal medical history is not accessible to anyone without permission from
the person of that history. Training in understanding confidential medical information is essential and a cost where trust can
be expensive.
Remember, these 'passports' aren't just for people who've had the two jabs, they're for people who can't have the jab because
of particular personal medical reasons or have an 'inbuilt immunity' Another new expression used in the media world.
Boris Johnson said:
“I should serve notice now that by the end of September, when all over-18s will have had their chance to be double-jabbed,
we are planning to make full vaccination the condition of entry to nightclubs and other venues where large crowds gather."
Addressing younger people directly, Johnson said: “Some of life’s most important pleasures and opportunities are likely
to be increasingly dependent on vaccination.”
Forty-three Conservative members of Boris Johnson's party revolted against the announcement and even now -Friday
23rd July, the outrage is still on the back-burner in the established media circles. The questions of 'what would be deemed
a large gathering in the future' and with the announcement that certain employees and politicians would be exempt from
following rules the rest of the public are supposed to adhere to, would their access into large gatherings be impeded too?
The lame-stream media have ducked responding to the announcement in the same manner they've never questioned the
asinine rational reasons of why a society is being ridiculed in previous futile announcements.
Aerospace engineers were always exempt from any flight restrictions and of course, certain Journalists too.
A member of Parliament can enter the House of Commons regardless of restrictions installed elsewhere.
Employees at food-supply warehouses will not need to isolate if their cell-phones makes a pinging sound.
Euro officials for the recent soccer tournament didn't have to self-isolate for ten days when visiting the UK.
And the virus knows all these rules.
The outcry in the media is still minimal and I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop on what I believe was a daring test-balloon.
It was never about a disease, it was about gathering information. Information that has potential benefits for any future agenda.
Relevant data on the old was never their goal, their eye was on the young from the very start.
From The Times -a paper that uses the ruse that many of the Democrat-loving media-outlets in the US applies. Ignore the
statement, write about the response from an opposing political party. I think Dan Bongino calls it 'Republicans Pounce'!
Quote:Labour opposes Boris Johnson plans for Covid vaccine passportsArchived Times Article:
'Labour will oppose the government’s plans for domestic vaccine passports, putting Boris Johnson at risk of an embarrassing
defeat if he presses ahead with plans to introduce them in packed venues. The prime minister announced this week that from
he end of September people would have to show they had been fully vaccinated against coronavirus as a condition of access
to nightclubs and other crowded indoor settings.
The proposals caused uproar among some Conservative MPs, who believe the measure is tantamount to making vaccinations
compulsory. Today they were joined by Sir Keir Starmer, the Labour leader, who said that requiring people to show they had a
recent negative test result would be a more effective measure.
“We need to see the detail of what the government puts forward regarding vaccine passports,” a Labour spokesman said.
“We oppose the use of Covid vaccination status for everyday access to venues and services.
“It’s costly, open to fraud and is impractical. Being double jabbed doesn’t prove you aren’t carrying the virus.
Testing for access to venues would be more efficient, and would give people and businesses more certainty.”
Despite Johnson’s huge Commons majority, there may be enough Conservative rebels to rule out passports now that Labour
has announced its opposition.
After Johnson announced the plans on Monday, one cabinet minister complained to The Times: “It’s a stepping stone to ID cards.
I’m not in favour of compulsion. The young aren’t affected by Covid. The policy is not zero Covid, the policy is cutting deaths and
trying to stop the NHS from falling over.
There aren’t many unvaccinated elderly people going to nightclubs.”
Mark Harper, chairman of the Covid recovery group of MPs, said: “If you can’t do normal things without being vaccinated then that’s
compulsory vaccination by the back door. We’ve never had compulsory vaccination and I don’t want to live in a country where, literally
or metaphorically, we hold people down and stick needles in them.”
Tory WhatsApp groups were inundated with complaints about vaccine passports, many coming from members of the 2019 intake.
One MP elected in Johnson’s landslide said: “Vaccine passports are not conservative, create a two-tier system and just signal that
further restrictions will come. It’s a total cop-out.”
David Davis, the civil liberties campaigner and former cabinet minister, said: “Vaccination is sensible. But it is entirely wrong to try to
coerce people into having them.” In opposing the plans, Labour is putting itself on the side of the hospitality sector, which has repeatedly
opposed vaccine passports.
UKHospitality, the trade body, said that Covid certificates would be a “costly burden that run the risk of creating flashpoints between staff
and customers, as well as raising potential issues with equalities legislation and the handling of customer data”...'
Edith Head Gives Good Wardrobe.