The Covid enquiry.

[flixton]

Well you’re in for a surprise then given the information is readily available to the public.

Im not your gopher mate, put the same effort in as you have on this thread and you’ll find your answer, it’s really not difficult, and if your response is you can’t be arsed or whatever then you don’t really wish to find out but instead just want to argue your beliefs or troll etc

I’ve gone into detail on all the previous threads on the subject of covid.

Follow the money, it’s that simple.

It never ceases to amaze me that people believe some idiot off Twitter or YouTube in preference to expert academics who live and breathe the subject. Oxbridge experts are dismissed in favour of some self important publicists.

You simply can't argue with people like this.

 

[Redtreble]

Well you’re in for a surprise then given the information is readily available to the public.

Im not your gopher mate, put the same effort in as you have on this thread and you’ll find your answer, it’s really not difficult, and if your response is you can’t be arsed or whatever then you don’t really wish to find out but instead just want to argue your beliefs or troll etc

I’ve gone into detail on all the previous threads on the subject of covid.

Follow the money, it’s that simple.

Translation: 'I'm talking utter bollocks and can't provide a single shred of credible evidence to back up my idiotic claim'.

Got it.

 

[red red robbo]

I was going to start a thread the other week when that study was published, then thought 'no point'.

The responses you have had serve to prove I was right.

You have to remember that the government ran an effective campaign, aimed a getting people to comply, therefore the vast majority are still convinced they did the right thing, all be it a bit too late.

My grandma was convinced carrots helped you see in the dark, right up and until she died. Once folk are convinced, they are convinced, even when you serve up fully researched, expert scientific opinion

I thought we were supposed to question everything and take nothing at face value? There have been some perfectly valid concerns raised about the content and conclusions of the research, as there should be for all research. that is why you publish, to let other people have a look and ask questions. It's funny how we have to question everything unless it agrees with your particular stance on something, and then it is beyond reproach.

Well, the paper wasn’t peer reviewed, Johns Hopkins has distanced itself from it, it’s by two guys who were anti lockdown to start with and aren’t epidemiologists, but has been criticised by people who are. So as a starting point you could probably find more reliable studies if you’re actually into reading them.

Aha, makes more sense now.

So some have criticised it and some have supported it. You dismiss it because it challenges your hard felt opinions.

That is fair enough. The fact that it hasn't been peer reviewed does not mean it is not a decent report or unreliable.

The fact that it has been dismissed by people with a entrenched opinion supporting lockdowns does not mean it is a bad report.

There are many other reports which have drawn similar conclusions. No doubt these will also be dismissed by people holding opposite opinions.

The reports I read have changed my opinion. I recall that the height of the virus that people suggesting that closing school would cause untold damage to children's, were dismissed as extremists.

I cannot see how anyone can look at the amount of excess deaths we are still suffering as a nation, the damage to children's education, the missed cancer diagnosis, the working from home culture that has led to inefficiencies across the public sector and say that lockdown was a success.

Governments and the WEF are now so emboldened by seeing people allow such control over their lives that they will accelerate their efforts to control.

The left used to be against government control now they seem to actively support it.

Err, yeah, it does. that's the pint of the peer review system.

Are there similarly many other reports that come to a different conclusion, and have you dismissed them?

It’s called following the money.

I’ve been called that before on this subject on here and was proven right.

I find it hard to take people seriously who use that phrase though, having an inquiring mind and going beyond the narratives of the MSM should be the norm….question everything!

"Go beyond the MSM narrative" (but stop at the first YT video that agrees with your preconceived ideas).

Well you’re in for a surprise then given the information is readily available to the public.

Im not your gopher mate, put the same effort in as you have on this thread and you’ll find your answer, it’s really not difficult, and if your response is you can’t be arsed or whatever then you don’t really wish to find out but instead just want to argue your beliefs or troll etc

I’ve gone into detail on all the previous threads on the subject of covid.

Follow the money, it’s that simple.

Excellent, "Do your own research".

House!

 

[Redtreble]

"Go beyond the MSM narrative" (but stop at the first YT video that agrees with your preconceived ideas).



Excellent, "Do your own research".

House!

Hilarious isn't it? Don't forget the other conspiracy theory cliché - 'Follow the money'. Yeah, maybe start with BBC's audited accounts which are published every year

 

[gspaddock]

Any poitician that profited from it should be hung.

Anybody that profited from it should be hung

Hanged.

 

[kilgore]

A growing NHS waiting list is tory party policy and has been for years. It means they can claim that the state funded healthcare model isn't working and we should tear it up and replace it with some sort of insurance funded nightmare.

We absolutely should have implemented lockdown two weeks earlier, when it was clear what was happening in Italy, this is basically unarguable. It would have tempered the initial surge and bought us time to look at a more nuanced approach. I don't really know much about the bounceback loans, but I am sure that whatever terms they were on they would be more beneficial to the tories banking mates than to small businesses that actually need help.

Yes, the code should definitely have been reviewed and updated, but, this sort of thing doesn't happen very often, and the parameters that the model would have to take into account change all the time. It would be very difficult to produce any kind of validated code that took every aspect into account that it needed to. Models will ALWAYS differ from reality, at best they might tell you the general direction something will head in and give you a ball park figure, to within a couple of magnitudes accuracy.

What we really should learn from this is that we need to educate people better. We need to teach people to think critically and we need to teach them how to understand and asses statistical and scientific data. Oh, and if at all possible, stop fucking lying to them all the time, then they might believe you when you need them to take you seriously.

Bit like the modern day "fan" who think they know everything about football from playing a computer game despite never going to a game or playing in an actual game.

 

[MrB1967]

Hanged.

Tremendous

 

[Old Iron Balls]

Hilarious isn't it? Don't forget the other conspiracy theory cliché - 'Follow the money'. Yeah, maybe start with BBC's audited accounts which are published every year

Hilarious (but also predictable) that you decided to direct your energy towards me rather than doing a few quick searches where you will have your answer, as I said the info is publicly available for curious minds, if you want to find out (which you’ve just demonstrated you don’t) then you will.

I’ve posted all of this and named names in the various threads on here during the last 3 years or so and had a 15 year old account banned for the trouble, I’ve had all of these discussions before on here which is why I’m not going to spoon feed you like a dribbling spastic.

But hey, feel free to point your finger and call me names whilst stood with the herd, I really don’t care.

 

[red red robbo]

Hilarious (but also predictable) that you decided to direct your energy towards me rather than doing a few quick searches where you will have your answer, as I said the info is publicly available for curious minds, if you want to find out (which you’ve just demonstrated you don’t) then you will.

I’ve posted all of this and named names in the various threads on here during the last 3 years or so and had a 15 year old account banned for the trouble, I’ve had all of these discussions before on here which is why I’m not going to spoon feed you like a dribbling spastic.

But hey, feel free to point your finger and call me names whilst stood with the herd, I really don’t care.

Absolutely classic CTist behaviour

Whilst those attempting to debunk such positions will set out their thinking clearly, usually citing sources and providing links, your CTist will simply shout "Do your own research, ignore the MSM, think for yourself".

EDIT: I forgot the reference their opponents being farm animals, "herd, sheeple"

 

[twatlock]

Absolutely classic CTist behaviour

Whilst those attempting to debunk such positions will set out their thinking clearly, usually citing sources and providing links, your CTist will simply shout "Do your own research, ignore the MSM, think for yourself".

EDIT: I forgot the reference their opponents being farm animals, "herd, sheeple"

Fuck off will you, I am agreeing with virtually all what you are posting.

 

[Redtreble]

Hilarious (but also predictable) that you decided to direct your energy towards me rather than doing a few quick searches where you will have your answer, as I said the info is publicly available for curious minds, if you want to find out (which you’ve just demonstrated you don’t) then you will.

I’ve posted all of this and named names in the various threads on here during the last 3 years or so and had a 15 year old account banned for the trouble, I’ve had all of these discussions before on here which is why I’m not going to spoon feed you like a dribbling spastic.

But hey, feel free to point your finger and call me names whilst stood with the herd, I really don’t care.

You cannot donate money to the BBC; it's as simple as that. Whatever you may have read saying otherwise, presumably on some crackpot internet site, is incorrect. Presumably the sums you believe have been donated are substantial. If they had found a way to donate such sums, they'd be available to see in the accounts that the BBC publish. The alternative is that the BBC have received somes of money which they're effectively laundering. The BBC doing this would be one of the great all-time scandals, yet somehow you and few others on the internet know about it, but the rest of the world is just ignoring it. Do you know how idiotic this is? So I suggest you provide some decent proof otherwise I and others will consider you to be just another conspiracy theory loon.

Absolutely classic CTist behaviour

Whilst those attempting to debunk such positions will set out their thinking clearly, usually citing sources and providing links, your CTist will simply shout "Do your own research, ignore the MSM, think for yourself".

EDIT: I forgot the reference their opponents being farm animals, "herd, sheeple"

It's astonishing. They'll believe any old shite without applying an ounce of critical reasoning. Depressing actually.

 

[worthysmokers]

Fuck off will you, I am agreeing with virtually all what you are posting.

Which must be alarm bells for him….

 

[twatlock]

Which must be alarm bells for him….

I’ll have to switch to Tory cunts thread for a bit to get the world back on its kilter.

 

[worthysmokers]

Perhaps you'd like to provide solid evidence for your claims? I'm especially intrigued to know how this shadowy figure donated to the BBC, which as a public corporation, isn't actually allowed to accept donations...

I think he means people like Richard sharp, a Tory donor (400k), and who was a director of a thatcher conservative think tank in the 70s. He is the current bbc chairman, he was a banker before that and while working at Goldman Sachs managed Rishi sunak.

Before he was chairman of he bbc he managed to get then prime minster boris Johnson an £800,000 loan, when this came to light, labour asked for an investigation feeling it was a case of “you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours” following the investigation sharp will resign from the role in 2024.

He also suspended linaker over his refuges comments.

 

[Redtreble]

I think he means people like Richard sharp, a Tory donor (400k), and who was a director of a thatcher conservative think tank in the 70s. He is the current bbc chairman, he was a banker before that and while working at Goldman Sachs managed Rishi sunak.

Before he was chairman of he bbc he managed to get then prime minster boris Johnson an £800,000 loan, when this came to light, labour asked for an investigation feeling it was a case of “you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours” following the investigation sharp will resign from the role in 2024.

He also suspended linaker over his refuges comments.

Not really. He's trying to claim someone has donated a sizeable sum of money to the BBC, presumably to influence their output, which is frankly impossible.

 

[POLO]

Hanged.

No, no ,no...

Hung first, then hanged please

 

[bigfatron]

You cannot donate money to the BBC; it's as simple as that. Whatever you may have read saying otherwise, presumably on some crackpot internet site, is incorrect. Presumably the sums you believe have been donated are substantial. If they had found a way to donate such sums, they'd be available to see in the accounts that the BBC publish. The alternative is that the BBC have received somes of money which they're effectively laundering. The BBC doing this would be one of the great all-time scandals, yet somehow you and few others on the internet know about it, but the rest of the world is just ignoring it. Do you know how idiotic this is? So I suggest you provide some decent proof otherwise I and others will consider you to be just another conspiracy theory loon.

Actually you can, its generally to support work/activities that income from the TV Licence and the BBC's commercial income doesn't cover. You're right though that in percentage of overall BBC income terms that Gates Foundation money (which is basically to support World Service activity as a lot of the Foundation's work is in Africa) is basically a rounding error. The way its often spun by cranks is as if they're basically bankrolling the BBC.

 

[worthysmokers]

Not really. He's trying to claim someone has donated a sizeable sum of money to the BBC, presumably to influence their output, which is frankly impossible.

I think you can see conflicts of interest all over the big corporations/media/government, it doesn’t necessarily mean everything’s shady but some things are and it should cast doubt every once in a while.

Plus I imagine the way propaganda is spun and being spun has evolved to levels we wouldn’t even comprehend.

 

[red red robbo]

I think you can see conflicts of interest all over the big corporations/media/government, it doesn’t necessarily mean everything’s shady but some things are and it should cast doubt every once in a while.

Plus I imagine the way propaganda is spun and being spun has evolved to levels we wouldn’t even comprehend.

Except, the BBC didn't go out and get this tory cunt, he was forced into place by the government as yet another way to try and control the output of the BBC so it was less critical of them.

The tory party would like to see nothing more than the disbandment of the BBC, apart from maybe the break up and sell off of the NHS, so that their mates can hoover up all the viewers, listeners etc and force their diet of right wing, reactionary horseshit down their throats 24/7. A free, independent media is the enemy of the tory party.

 

[Redtreble]

Actually you can, its generally to support work/activities that income from the TV Licence and the BBC's commercial income doesn't cover. You're right though that in percentage of overall BBC income terms that Gates Foundation money (which is basically to support World Service activity as a lot of the Foundation's work is in Africa) is basically a rounding error. The way its often spun by cranks is as if they're basically bankrolling the BBC.

The BBC has a few charities and I would assume that any donations made to the BBC are not to the BBC itself, but to one of its charities. That is a different matter altogether. Indeed, a quick Google of Gates (which I assume is who he's talking about) shows a donation to the BBC World Service Trust, one of the BBC's charities. So indeed not the BBC itself, and to a charity totally in keeping with Gate's area of interest. And not a secret either.

 

[worthysmokers]

Except, the BBC didn't go out and get this tory cunt, he was forced into place by the government as yet another way to try and control the output of the BBC so it was less critical of them.

The tory party would like to see nothing more than the disbandment of the BBC, apart from maybe the break up and sell off of the NHS, so that their mates can hoover up all the viewers, listeners etc and force their diet of right wing, reactionary horseshit down their throats 24/7. A free, independent media is the enemy of the tory party.

Is this conspiracy drivel red treble?

 

[Redtreble]

Is this conspiracy drivel red treble?

Which aspect? The story of the rise and fall of Richard Sharp is well-documented.

Are the Tories hostile to the BBC? In my opinion, yes, I would say so. I don't think it's any coincidence that shows like Mock The Week and The Mash Report have been cancelled during his reign (cancellation of TMR being practically the first thing that happened after he joined the BBC).

 

[bigfatron]

The BBC has a few charities and I would assume that any donations made to the BBC are not to the BBC itself, but to one of its charities. That is a different matter altogether. Indeed, a quick Google of Gates (which I assume is who he's taking about) shows a donation to the BBC World Service Trust, one of the BBC's charities. So indeed not the BBC itself, and to a charity totally in keeping with Gate's area of interest. And not a secret either.

Yeah, its open and pretty transparent (a BBC page will even tell you who donates how much).

 

[Growler]

Which aspect? The story of the rise and fall of Richard Sharp is well-documented.

Are the Tories hostile to the BBC? In my opinion, yes, I would say so. I don't think it's any coincidence that shows like Mock The Week and The Mash Report have been cancelled during his reign (cancellation of TMR being practically the first thing that happened after he joined the BBC).

So he got one thing right at least.

 

[Redtreble]

So he got one thing right at least.

I don't think less Elie Taylor and Rachel Parris on our screens can ever be considered a good thing.

 

[JG79]

So he got one thing right at least.

if youre a tory yeah i guess

 

[wayne_looney]

Except, the BBC didn't go out and get this tory cunt, he was forced into place by the government as yet another way to try and control the output of the BBC so it was less critical of them.

The tory party would like to see nothing more than the disbandment of the BBC, apart from maybe the break up and sell off of the NHS, so that their mates can hoover up all the viewers, listeners etc and force their diet of right wing, reactionary horseshit down their throats 24/7. A free, independent media is the enemy of the tory party.

Exactly. They want total domination, as we can see with the TV and Radio stations.

On a par with City and football.

Don't the Tories keep saying we need a strong opposition?

Do they fuck.

 

[Growler]

I don't think less Elie Taylor and Rachel Parris on our screens can ever be considered a good thing.

Nish Kumar on the other hand.

 

[Old Iron Balls]

The BBC has a few charities and I would assume that any donations made to the BBC are not to the BBC itself, but to one of its charities. That is a different matter altogether. Indeed, a quick Google of Gates (which I assume is who he's talking about) shows a donation to the BBC World Service Trust, one of the BBC's charities. So indeed not the BBC itself, and to a charity totally in keeping with Gate's area of interest. And not a secret either.

I didn’t say it was a secret, otherwise I wouldn’t have said the info was publicly available would I?

Nor did I say I read it on some random website, you can find the info on the BMGF site as well as other sources, if you’d put some time and energy into it instead of arguing on here you’d have known, that’s not me saying ‘do some research’ either, I’ve had all of these conversations on here during the last 3 years and know what comments will get thrown back at me because of it, so I can’t be arsed, plus it’s me giving you a nudge in the right direction, reason being I think it’s important people find these things out for themselves rather than taking it from some random on the net.

Gates has donated substantial amounts to media (around 250M from memory) in order to rebuild his reputation after the MS anti trust case, which is why he has faced (so far) so little criticism over here.

His foundation funded the NIH research into GoF at Wuhan, ran event 201 to simulate a bat coronavirus, told you there was a pandemic coming and he’s also heavily invested in 2 of the vaccines, (even bragged about 20:1 returns on vaccines) and was the largest funder of the WHO before Trump pulled the US funding, if that doesn’t at least seem somewhat suss then I don’t know what to say.

It’s up to you to decide if he’s a good willed philanthropist or not but the more you dig the more stuff about him comes to light, I believe once he dies we’ll have avalanche of info come out similar to Savile, but less rapey, although he was mates with Epstein post conviction, which he gets very uncomfortable about when asked, he twitches and touches his face like the love child of Harry Redknapp and Brendan Rodgers when questioned.

 

[Growler]

if youre a tory yeah i guess

Would have a lot more bite and be actually funny if it wasn't the usual brigade of feeble Radio 4 'comedians' whose whole act is whining about the Tories and shoehorning feminist drivel into everything.

How Nish Kumar has the audacity to larp as a comedian is beyond me, at least the desperately unfunny women that infest these type of shows are easy on the eye.

Fuck the smug idpol cunts off and get comedians that can identify and properly tear apart the problems with our politics instead of regurgitating the same tired bullshit to morons.

wayne looney would be a better host than Nish fucking Kumar.

 

[Stoned Moses]

Would have a lot more bite and be actually funny if it wasn't the usual brigade of feeble Radio 4 'comedians' whose whole act is whining about the Tories and shoehorning feminist drivel into everything.

How Nish Kumar has the audacity to larp as a comedian is beyond me, at least the desperately unfunny women that infest these type of shows are easy on the eye.

Fuck the smug idpol cunts off and get comedians that can identify and properly tear apart the problems with our politics instead of regurgitating the same tired bullshit to morons.

wayne looney would be a better host than Nish fucking Kumar.

You were doing so well until the last sentence Growler

 

[Strachan Cigar]

Covid strategy was whac a mole. Problem is we have the inevitable excess deaths now because of what we decided to do then.

No absolute rights or wrongs imo, apart from the cunts who made money out of it of course.

 

[DoubleJ]

The government members who gave out millions in fraudulent PPE contracts should all be up in court.

 

[wayne_looney]

He mislead parliament apparently.

Report is out now.

 

[Metalflake]

Any poitician that profited from it should be hung.

Same for the ones that didn't, just to be sure.

 

[red red robbo]

He mislead parliament apparently.

Report is out now.

Well knock me down with a feather

The Privileges Committee concludes Boris Johnson should have been suspended from the House for 90 days.

It says he deliberately misled the House, the Committee, impugned the Committee and was "complicit in the campaign of abuse and attempted intimidation of the Committee."

It adds "We recommend that he should not be entitled to a former Member's pass."

 

[POLO]

It was always going to be the judgement. After all, we know he lied because we saw him on the tele doing it. The question was whether the Tories on the panel could keep the punishment below 10 days. The degree of the findings here is what counts, stunning from a Tory majority group of MPs.

 

[wayne_looney]

https://twitter.com/PeterStefanovi2/status/1669257209539092481/photo/1

Still in shock here.

 

[wayne_looney]

Well knock me down with a feather

Still saying it was a kangaroo court.

He can't stop lying, just like Trump.

 

[POLO]

Pannick gets a hammering too. Hopefully not the last time this dickhead’s inflated opinion of himself backfires.

https://twitter.com/hzeffman/status/1669259522009882624?s=46&t=e7yx--h7YCyage1uU0QcPA