In the UK, the dying mainstream media continue to discuss -mainly with other fellow-Journalists,
the Government-stated redundant issue of 'Covid Certificates' as a guessed-at means of entry to
certain public gatherings.
Even though the Prime Minister and his designated Covid-Czars have ruled them out for access to
British alfresco venues like pubs, restaurants and even shopping, the media are still hanging onto
the idea that somewhere in the future, there be a need for someone-unsaid, to see your paperz!
Why...? Nobody in the UK seems to want such restrictive measures and such constrictions go against
many of the Human-Rights Acts that the UK Government are fully aware of. Yet everyday, mouth-pieces
on TV are pushing such an agenda so much, that the biased comments often let slip the previous narrative
that a vaccine is good for us.
The media's ignorant narrative goes like this:
If you've had the vaccine, you should have a certificate that states this. Hence, you can access a facility
or travel overseas.
If you've had a test and proven negative, you should have a certificate that states this. Then the same
'privileges' apply.
If you've had Covid-19 and now clear of possible transmission, you should have a certificate that states this.
Immunity guarantees a person cannot be a danger in the venues listed above.
Then, a unknown non-Governmental person at a Public drinking-establishment -who hasn't permission from
your Doctor or yourself to access your private medical records and not extensively-trained in health-variables
and public safety, can say yay-or-nay on whether you can drink a pint of beer.
(As of writing this, I noticed the 'Google' logo even have surgical-masks on!)
This morning, I discovered from a commentary of Adam Fleming -a 'Westminster' BBC's Chief Political
Correspondent, who unwittingly stated that the best option to be able to avoid all these imagined landmines,
was to contract Covid-19. Presumably -in his imagined world, then any certification would be single and
permanent, as Covid-testing would demand an everyday check and an everyday update of a certificate.
We can all agree when deliberating over a supposed serious matter, various options will be discussed.
This is normal when one is given the responsibility of solving an issue or coming up with alternative ways
of succeeding. Then it would be sensible to look at certain ideas that initially, may seem viable.
Then when such a suggestion is applied to the realities of -in this case, a freedom-based society that
generates finance, a healthy outlook in humanitarian issues and concern for itself and other societies,
a genuine idea might collapse and look ridiculous in the cold light of reality.
So again, why would the mainstream media pursue this dead-and-buried empty-headed narrative?
The answer has nothing to do with the same major news outlets laying in bed with unseen global power-brokers
or doing the bidding of AOC and Greta Thunberg, it's about the failure via today's technology, to retain their control
on public discourse.
People of a certain age trusted the media. Those same people are dying off and as the young -stalwarts of social
-media grow older, they rely on the only thing they know to acquire information. The internet.
Their customer base is diminishing and they don't know what to do except ask the main internet forum-providers
to cancel their -now perceived, enemy.
The social-status of a Journalist has been used for many years as the equivalence of a person of professional
standing, someone who is reliable, trustworthy and self-accountable. Doctor, Teacher... that sort of thing.
A Journalist's name could be used as a reference in a character letter for employment and even to acquire a passport.
Sadly, as the trade melted to accommodate the concept of 'infotainment', a better way of attaining ratings and supporting
the conviction of having social-control via constructed narratives This status has been ironically lost in the minds of the
public. The actual people Journalists were originally perceived to serve!
Sometimes, day-to-day reality takes the place of conspiracy and doubt. When the Loch Ness Monster articles appear in
newspapers or on establishment news websites, it's not because Nessie decided to rear its head when the weather is
better in the Great Glen, it's because news becomes slower when the public -and Journalists, go on vacation and the
workforce is scaled back.
Life is often simple.
The standard method of Journalism is dying and refuses to go down alone. It will report anything at an angle that could
increase traffic to its product and the idea of morally-based principles of neutral factual exposition now belongs to a
romantic past, when social-trust was still believable.
It's a tragic situation, but I -for one, will not be putting flowers on its grave.
the Government-stated redundant issue of 'Covid Certificates' as a guessed-at means of entry to
certain public gatherings.
Even though the Prime Minister and his designated Covid-Czars have ruled them out for access to
British alfresco venues like pubs, restaurants and even shopping, the media are still hanging onto
the idea that somewhere in the future, there be a need for someone-unsaid, to see your paperz!
Why...? Nobody in the UK seems to want such restrictive measures and such constrictions go against
many of the Human-Rights Acts that the UK Government are fully aware of. Yet everyday, mouth-pieces
on TV are pushing such an agenda so much, that the biased comments often let slip the previous narrative
that a vaccine is good for us.
The media's ignorant narrative goes like this:
If you've had the vaccine, you should have a certificate that states this. Hence, you can access a facility
or travel overseas.
If you've had a test and proven negative, you should have a certificate that states this. Then the same
'privileges' apply.
If you've had Covid-19 and now clear of possible transmission, you should have a certificate that states this.
Immunity guarantees a person cannot be a danger in the venues listed above.
Then, a unknown non-Governmental person at a Public drinking-establishment -who hasn't permission from
your Doctor or yourself to access your private medical records and not extensively-trained in health-variables
and public safety, can say yay-or-nay on whether you can drink a pint of beer.
(As of writing this, I noticed the 'Google' logo even have surgical-masks on!)
This morning, I discovered from a commentary of Adam Fleming -a 'Westminster' BBC's Chief Political
Correspondent, who unwittingly stated that the best option to be able to avoid all these imagined landmines,
was to contract Covid-19. Presumably -in his imagined world, then any certification would be single and
permanent, as Covid-testing would demand an everyday check and an everyday update of a certificate.
We can all agree when deliberating over a supposed serious matter, various options will be discussed.
This is normal when one is given the responsibility of solving an issue or coming up with alternative ways
of succeeding. Then it would be sensible to look at certain ideas that initially, may seem viable.
Then when such a suggestion is applied to the realities of -in this case, a freedom-based society that
generates finance, a healthy outlook in humanitarian issues and concern for itself and other societies,
a genuine idea might collapse and look ridiculous in the cold light of reality.
So again, why would the mainstream media pursue this dead-and-buried empty-headed narrative?
The answer has nothing to do with the same major news outlets laying in bed with unseen global power-brokers
or doing the bidding of AOC and Greta Thunberg, it's about the failure via today's technology, to retain their control
on public discourse.
People of a certain age trusted the media. Those same people are dying off and as the young -stalwarts of social
-media grow older, they rely on the only thing they know to acquire information. The internet.
Their customer base is diminishing and they don't know what to do except ask the main internet forum-providers
to cancel their -now perceived, enemy.
The social-status of a Journalist has been used for many years as the equivalence of a person of professional
standing, someone who is reliable, trustworthy and self-accountable. Doctor, Teacher... that sort of thing.
A Journalist's name could be used as a reference in a character letter for employment and even to acquire a passport.
Sadly, as the trade melted to accommodate the concept of 'infotainment', a better way of attaining ratings and supporting
the conviction of having social-control via constructed narratives This status has been ironically lost in the minds of the
public. The actual people Journalists were originally perceived to serve!
Sometimes, day-to-day reality takes the place of conspiracy and doubt. When the Loch Ness Monster articles appear in
newspapers or on establishment news websites, it's not because Nessie decided to rear its head when the weather is
better in the Great Glen, it's because news becomes slower when the public -and Journalists, go on vacation and the
workforce is scaled back.
Life is often simple.
The standard method of Journalism is dying and refuses to go down alone. It will report anything at an angle that could
increase traffic to its product and the idea of morally-based principles of neutral factual exposition now belongs to a
romantic past, when social-trust was still believable.
It's a tragic situation, but I -for one, will not be putting flowers on its grave.
Edith Head Gives Good Wardrobe.