Now that Randy Andy has been exposed as an Epstein-associated degenerate, even the most dyed-in-the-wool defenders of the British royal family are starting to question their fealty to the House of Windsor. But do you know just how many pedophiles have personally mentored and advised King Charles himself? Strap in, because you’re about to learn just how deep the royal rabbit hole really goes.
Video player not working? Use these links to watch it somewhere else!
I am confident that over 2 million people in the UK have shared thoughts on the Genocide in Gaza that are stronger than anything Natalie Strecker has expressed.
I am quite certain that I am one of those 2 million.
Yet Natalie Strecker, an avowed pacifist and mother of young children, today faces up to ten years in prison under the Terrorism Act when the verdict in her case comes in.
Strecker is charged with eliciting support for Hamas and Hezbollah, based on 8 tweets, cherry-picked by police and prosecutors from an astounding 51,000 tweets she sent, mainly from the Jersey Palestine Solidarity Committee account.
The tweets were rather rattled off in court and referred to occasionally again in whole and in part. There may be minor inaccuracies not affecting sense, but this is the best reconstruction of those tweets that I can make (they were not displayed to the public):
“People will be individually resisting: otherwise we would be asking them to submit to genocide on their knees”
“Solidarity with the people of Lebanon and Hezbollah has the right to resist in international law, I remind you the occupier does not, and are legally obligated to try to prevent Genocide.”
“Solidarity with the resistance. In the same way that the reistance fought the Nazis in Europe, we must support the fight against the Nazis of our generation”.
“Resistance is their legal right under moral and international law. If you don’t want resistance, then don’t create the circumstances which require it. Solidarity with the Resistance.”
“This nonsense our nation has descended into, where one side is committing genocide, and the other is proscribed for fighting it. I believe Hezbollah may be Palestine’s last hope”.
“Hamas the resistance did not break out of their concentration camp to attack Jews as Jews. We can debate whether armed resistance is legitimate. Of course there should be no attacks on civilians.”
“I am sick of the MSM propaganda about “Hamas-run health ministry figures”. Hamas is the government in Gaza. Every health ministry in the world is run by its government.”
“Are you awake? So it is down to ordinary people like you an me to end it. We must take our power back. Join me in solidarity with the people of Lebanon and Palestine. Solidarity with the Resistance.”
That is it. The prosecution case is that these tweets, both collectively and individually, amount to an invitation of support for Hamas and Hezbollah resulting in up to ten years in jail in Jersey, or 14 years in jail on the UK mainland.
The prosecution explicitly stated, and the judge notably intervened to make sure that everybody understood, that it is the offence of supporting terrorism to state that the Palestinians have the right to armed resistance in international law.
Judge John Saunders interrupted the prosecution to ask whether they were saying that he would be guilty of support for terrorism if, in a lecture, he told an international law class that Palestinians have the right to armed resistance in international law.
After some kerfuffle when faced with such an awkward question, the prosecution replied that yes, it could be the offence to tell law students that.
I should point out, at risk of dying in jail, that the Palestinians are beyond doubt an occupied people in international law, and equally beyond doubt an occupied people have the right of armed resistance.
To state that the Palestinians have the right of armed resistance in international law is not in the least controversial as a statement of law. A few Zionist nutters would try to differ, but 95% of international lawyers on this planet would agree.
I assume by perfectly logical extension that this means the prosecution must believe it is a terrorist crime in UK law, for example, to quote UN General Assembly Resolution 37/43, which:
2. Reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle;
3. Reaffirms the inalienable right of the Namibian people, the Palestinian people and all peoples under foreign and colonial domination to self-determination, national independence, territorial integrity, national unity and sovereignty without outside interference;
It is also worth stating that on Friday the prosecution stated, in these precise words, that “Resistance is synonymous with Hamas and Hezbollah” and that any support for, or justification of, Palestinian resistance is support for a proscribed organisation.
To repeat, there are millions of people in the UK who have stated stronger things than the tweets above. Including me. And, as the defence pointed out repeatedly, just eight tweets had been found after hundreds of hours of police time, and found amidst tens of thousands of other tweets on the Middle East, hundreds of which specifically urge non-violence.
So why are the police doing this to Natalie? Why did six armed police storm her apartment and rouse her young family at 7am a year ago, seizing all her electronics and papers, arresting her in front of her children and not allowing her to have a pee without leaving the bathroom door open so she could be observed?
This is where the story gets very dark indeed.
This is not a local Jersey initiative.
The prosecution is directed from London and Alison Morgan KC, senior Treasury counsel (UK government lawyer) is seated beside the local prosecuting counsel, openly puppeteering him every step of the way.
So why has the UK government chosen Jersey to prosecute a local pacifist mother whose statements provide possibly the weakest case of support for terrorism that has ever been heard in any court in the western world?
The answer is that here in Jersey there is no jury.
Facing this charge on the UK mainland Natalie would have a jury, and there is not a jury in the UK that would not throw this self-evidently vindictive nonsense out in 5 minutes.
Why is it worth the time and expense for Whitehall to send Alison Morgan KC here to direct a weak case against somebody who is obviously not a terrorist?
The plain answer is that this is a pilot for what they can get away with on the mainland when they abolish juries in such trials, as “Justice Secretary” David Lammy has announced that they will indeed do.
In Jersey the system is inherited from the Normans. The judge sits with two “jurats” or lay magistrates. They determine innocence or guilt. These come from a pool of 12 permanent jurats. In practice these are retired professionals and frequently have strong connections to the financial services industry.
What the jurats emphatically are not is Natalie Strecker’s working class peers of a kind who would be represented on a jury. I strongly recommend this brief article on the corruption of Jersey society by a man who was for 11 years the Government of Jersey’s economic adviser.
The judge, Sir John Saunders, seems a decent old stick in a headmasterly sort of way. He has told the court that “Mrs Strecker’s good character is not in doubt”. On Friday he stated that this was “A very difficult and in many ways a very sad case for the court to deal with. But I have to construe it according to strict legal principles”.
In the Palestine Action proscription case, as I reported, counsel for the UK government openly stated “We do not deny that the law is draconian. It is supposed to be”. In the mass arrests of decent people over Palestine Action, people have understood what a dreadfully authoritarian law the proscription regime is.
An intelligent observer cannot sit in Judge Saunders’ courtroom without realising that he thinks this is a dreadful law, but accepts that it is his job to enforce it. He reminds me of the caricature of the lugubrious headmaster stating “This is going to hurt me more than it is going to hurt you”.
In effect, Alison Morgan and the UK government are attempting through this prosecution to make even the most basic expression of support for Palestine a serious criminal offence. Remember that a terrorism conviction destroys your life – it almost certainly brings loss of employment, debanking and severe travel restrictions.
The International Court of Justice has decided that Israel has a real case to answer on Genocide, and most experts believe that Israel is committing Genocide. In Natalie’s correct image, the UK government is trying to make it a terrorist offence to say anything other than that the Palestinians should quietly submit to Genocide on their knees.
The danger is that the hubris of lay magistrates will lead the jurats to try cleverly to construe Natalie’s comments as support for terrorism in line with the government’s wishes. Natalie has, however, one defence in Jersey not available in mainland UK – here in Jersey the prosecution has to show intent: that she intended to cause support for terrorist organisations.
The prosecution has also relied on the extremely wide definition of support adopted in UK terrorist cases, that “support of” merely means “expression of agreement with”.
In defending the tweet about Hamas-run health ministry figures, Natalie Strecker’s counsel Luke Sette countered this rather well when he said: “there is no offence of causing people to think less badly of Hamas”
I confess however I am slightly puzzled that I have not heard the defence argue that the prosecution positions are grossly disproportionate violations of freedom of expression in terms of Article X of the European Convention of Human Rights.
I would have thought, for example, that was the natural thing to say in response to the prosecution’s contention that it would be a crime for a law lecturer to tell his class that the Palestinian people had the right of armed resistance in international law.
The verdict was decided yesterday afternoon between the judge and jurats. It will be presented in full written judgment in an hour’s time.
This is a truly horrifying case for Natalie, who cannot afford to lose her job with a Jersey government agency and most certainly does not wish to be jailed away from her children. I pinch myself to be sure that this is all really happening.
It is a truly horrifying case in terms of what the Starmer government intends to do on the mainland in further criminalising support for Palestine.
I do not support Hamas nor Hezbollah, being opposed to theocracy. But for it to be illegal to discuss the Genocide in Gaza and the role of these two organisations, unless you do it absolutely without either context or nuance, is Orwellian.
Western dissent is also a victim of the Zionist Genocide.
When you authorize naval-drone terrorism against Russian civilian oil tankers in the Black Sea, don’t whine when Moscow redraws the coastline. You wanted escalation? Fine. Now watch your proxy lose Odessa, and with it access to the Black Sea.
Washington is hunting for a face-saving imperfect peace after admitting Russia can’t be beaten. But London, and the EU — delusional, hysterical, and terrified of the coming reckoning from their own populations – keeps pushing the kind of escalation that guarantees one outcome: Russia removing Ukraine’s coastline so the Black Sea can’t be used as NATO’s private terrorism platform. Every naval-drone attack, every strike on a tanker, every British engineered terror op doesn’t weaken Russia, it strengthens Russia’s moral, legal and military argument for needing Odessa.
On Nov 21, Ukraine launched a MAGURA V5 naval drone packed with ~200 kg of explosives at the Russian tanker SIG, a civilian vessel transporting fuel. Earlier, on September 13, a coordinated drone-and-missile strike hit Sevastopol’s shipyard, damaging a patrol ship and igniting a fire visible for kilometres. In October, multiple MAGURA V5 drones attempted to strike the Sergey Kotov, a patrol corvette, the footage released by Ukraine’s GUR bears the hallmark of British-assisted targeting and mission-planning systems. The pattern is undeniable, Ukraine’s entire maritime warfare capability is thanks to the West.
These naval drones didn’t glide across the Black Sea on luck and instinct. With operational ranges approaching 800 kilometers, Ukraine’s MAGURA V5 drones strike far beyond coastal waters, but only with the eyes and brains of NATO. They rely on Western ISR: real-time satellite feeds from the UK and France, RQ-4 Global Hawk patrols off Romania, Starlink uplinks beaming mission data, and British-assisted target coordination. Europe wasn’t just observing. It was triangulating and commanding. And now, after cheering on attacks launched with AI-assisted maritime drones and foreign-fed targeting, Europe feigns shock that Moscow may erase access to the very coastline launching them.
Europe is not supporting Ukraine. Europe is sacrificing it, with full knowledge of what these strikes provoke. Every official in Brussels, London, and Paris understands Russia’s red lines, they’ve memorized them for years. They know that attacking civilian tankers, port infrastructure, and Black Sea Fleet assets from a Nato-commanded coastline forces Moscow to harden the entire southern theater. Yet they push Zelensky, their puppet, into terror operations that guarantee Odessa becomes a battlefield and cease forever to be a bargaining chip.
When a coastline becomes a NATO forward-operating platform masquerading as a proxy state, removing that coastline becomes self-defense. Europe knows this. Washington knows this. That is precisely why Europe, cornered and terrified of the political reckoning on its own soil, keeps escalating. Starmer fears British rage at the coming humiliation. Macron fears the streets of France. They all know what’s coming.
And here lies the supreme irony: the same political caste that spent decades sneering that Russia was “a glorified gas station” is now petrified at the thought of facing Russia without American cover.
Moscow now has zero incentive to leave a hostile coastline intact. Landlock Kiev. Neutralize NATO’s Black Sea fantasies.
When Odessa falls, Europe will shriek “aggression,” pretending not to remember who designed the drones, who funded and commanded the operations, daring Russia to respond. But the world will remember. And history will not record this as conquest. It will record it as the foreclosure of a coastline weaponized by Europe’s own madness.
Russia will will by turn the map into a verdict, one future generations of Europeans will demand their leaders answer for, and there will be hell to pay for the betrayal of Europe.
Macro-data during the COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom (UK) are shown to have significant data anomalies and inconsistencies with existing explanations.
This paper shows that the UK spike in deaths, wrongly attributed to COVID-19 in April 2020,
was not due to SARS-CoV-2 virus, which was largely absent,
but was due to the widespread use of Midazolam injections,
which were statistically very highly correlated (coefficient over 90%) with excess deaths in all regions of England during 2020.
Importantly, excess deaths remained elevated following mass vaccination in 2021,
but were statistically uncorrelated to COVID injections, while remaining significantly correlated to Midazolam injections.
The widespread and persistent use of Midazolam in UK suggests a possible policy of systemic euthanasia.
Unlike Australia, where assessing the statistical impact of COVID injections on excess deaths is relatively straightforward,
UK excess deaths were closely associated with the use of Midazolam and other medical intervention.
The iatrogenic pandemic in the UK was caused by euthanasia deaths from Midazolam and also,
likely caused by COVID injections,
but their relative impacts are difficult to measure from the data, due to causal proximity of euthanasia.
Global investigations of COVID-19 epidemiology, based only on the relative impacts of COVID disease and vaccination, may be inaccurate, due to the neglect of significant confounding factors in some countries.
Graphs
April 2020, 98.8% increase 43,796
January 2021, 29.2% increase 16,546
Therefore covid is very dangerous,
This interpretation, which is disputable, justified politically the declaration of emergency and all public health measures, including masking, lockdowns, etc.
Excess deaths and erroneous conclusions
2020, 76,000
2021, 54,000
2022, 45,000
This evidence of “vaccine effectiveness” was illusory, due to incorrect attribution of the 2020 death spike.
PS
Despite advances in modern information technology, the accuracy of data collection has not advanced in the United Kingdom for over 150 years,
because the same problems of erroneous data entry found then are still found now in the COVID pandemic,
not only in the UK but all over the world.
We have independently discovered the same UK data problem and solution for assessing COVID-19 vaccination as Alfred Russel Wallace had 150 years ago in investigating the consequences of Vaccination Acts starting in 1840 on smallpox:
The Alfred Russel Wallace as used by Wilson Sy
“Having thus cleared away the mass of doubtful or erroneous statistics,
depending on comparisons of the vaccinated and unvaccinated in limited areas or selected groups of patients,
we turn to the only really important evidence, those ‘masses of national experience’…”
Newly released documents have offered a detailed look inside the UK’s Defense and Security Media Advisory (DSMA) Committee, revealing how the body guides, shapes, and at times suppresses reporting on national-security issues, and now seeks to extend its influence to social media platforms.
A cache of DSMA files published by The Grayzone shows how the committee — made up of military, intelligence, and media representatives — routinely advises British newsrooms on sensitive subjects, including intelligence operations, special forces activity, and high-profile criminal inquiries.
Although the DSMA system is formally voluntary, the documents show the body boasts of a “90%+ success rate” in persuading journalists not to publish certain information, while categorizing independent media as “extremist” for publishing “embarrassing” stories.
Logs from 2011 to 2014 list dozens of “requests for advice” on topics ranging from the death of GCHQ employee Gareth Williams to UK cooperation with foreign intelligence services. The documents do not clarify whether journalists sought guidance proactively or whether the committee intervened pre-publication.
The Grayzone report interprets the large number of inquiries as evidence of substantial editorial influence, particularly regarding reporting on rendition programs, special forces operations in Libya, and Syria.
From May to November 2012, the Committee handled requests relating to British special forces “involvement in Syria.” It was widely speculated that British special forces were present in Syria at this time, though few details have emerged since.
The files also show DSMA involvement surrounding long-running, sensitive cases such as the Dunblane massacre, Operation Ore, claims about child sexual abuse involving public officials, and the death of Princess Diana.
In some instances, journalists reportedly offered formal apologies for publishing material the committee viewed as problematic.
The documents further reveal tensions between the DSMA and independent outlets. A briefing to Australian officials labels critical non-mainstream publications as “extreme,” citing examples of independent reporting that did not follow DSMA advice.
The committee’s internal review, however, asserts it does not act on information merely because it may “embarrass” the government.
As digital platforms have weakened traditional media controls, the DSMA has pushed to expand its remit. Internal reviews describe social media as a threat to its influence, and meeting minutes show the committee exploring ways to involve “tech giants” in a push to suppress revealing disclosures on platforms like Meta and Twitter/X.
While platforms have largely resisted direct engagement, the DSMA has expressed hope that future regulation could compel greater cooperation.
Europe has long lost its right to have a say in the Ukraine crisis and effectively “removed itself” from the negotiations process through its own actions, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has said.
The top diplomat made the remarks on Sunday to Russian journalist Pavel Zerubin, who asked the minister whether Europe was in its right to “outrageously” push for some role in the negotiations to settle the Ukraine conflict.
“We proceed from the premise… – which I believe is obvious to everybody – that Europe has already removed itself from the talks,” Lavrov said.
Europe has long “used up its chances” to have a say in the settlement process, the top diplomat said, pointing out that it repeatedly derailed efforts to resolve the Ukraine crisis since its very beginning, the 2014 Maidan turmoil that resulted culminated with a coup and overthrowal of the democratically elected president.
“Europe spoiled the initial deal of February 2014, when it acted as guarantor for the formal agreement between Viktor Yanukovych and the opposition. It did nothing when the opposition seized all government agencies the morning after the agreement was signed,” Lavrov said.
The top diplomat also pointed at the admissions made by former German Chancellor Angela Merkel and ex-French President Francois Hollande, who said “that nobody had intended to fulfill” the Minsk agreements aimed at bringing the civil conflict in then-Ukrainian Donbass to its end.
“The most recent case occurred in April 2022 when, at the demand of the then Prime Minister of the UK Boris Johnson and with Europe’s full acquiescence, if not connivance, the Istanbul agreements were derailed,” the foreign minister said.
Multiple European leaders and institutions have been insisting that any potential peace deal on Ukraine must include the EU as well, ramping up such rhetoric after the US floated its latest plan to resolve the crisis. The proposals reportedly include Kiev abandoning its NATO aspirations and capping the size of its army.
Germany, France, and the UK have reportedly drafted their version of the plan, making it pro-Ukrainian through removing or softening multiple of its points. Russia, however, has already signaled it finds the European proposals “completely unconstructive.”
Admitting Ukraine has failed in its conflict with Russia would cause a “political earthquake” in Europe, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has said. He warned that Western leaders are preparing to send troops and letting the conflict “become a business.”
Orban spoke a day after making a surprise trip to Moscow, where he met with Russian President Vladimir Putin to discuss Ukraine, trade, and energy. Despite the EU’s diplomatic boycott, he said Hungary has not yielded to pressure to cut ties with Russia and again offered to host peace talks.
Admitting that Ukraine has failed and that this cannot go on “would cause a fundamental earthquake in European politics,” he said during a speech on Saturday.
He warned that the West is increasingly open to direct involvement. “First they gave money, they gave weapons, and now it has emerged that if really necessary, they will also send soldiers,” Orban said.
Hungary has refused to provide weapons or troops to Ukraine and has repeatedly urged for a ceasefire. Orban’s government has frequently clashed with NATO and the EU nations’ leaders over its stance.
Orban believes diplomacy regarding the conflict has fallen prey to the defense sector. “Business circles connected to the military industry have an increasing influence on politics,” he pointed out, citing France’s deal with Kiev to purchase 100 combat aircraft and German arms factories being built in Ukraine.
Orban also claimed the West had managed to block a peace deal early in the conflict and that the move had ultimately harmed Ukraine. “The West prevented the Ukrainians from reaching an agreement, saying that time was on their side. But it turned out that it wasn’t,” he said.
“They are in a worse position today than if they had reached an agreement in April 2022,” he added, referring to the preliminary deal reached during the Istanbul talks. Kiev unilaterally walked away from those negotiations.
The European Union, along with the UK, has deliberately torpedoed the US peace roadmap aimed at ending the Ukraine conflict in the apparent hope that it “will fizzle out,” The Guardian has claimed.
Russia has repeatedly accused the EU of sabotaging efforts to end the bloodshed in Ukraine.
Washington put forth the peace framework earlier this month, and US officials are continuing to work on it. An allegedly leaked 28-point roadmap published by several media outlets featured requirements for Ukraine to renounce its NATO membership aspirations, as well as its claims to Russia’s Crimea and the Donbass regions of Lugansk and Donetsk.
Shortly after the contents of the US-drafted peace proposal were published by the press, several EU member states, along with the UK, scrambled to present their own version. Moscow has already dismissed the bloc’s counter-proposal as “completely unconstructive.”
On Saturday, The Guardian reported that the original US-drafted peace roadmap had filled “European leaders” with a “mixture of disbelief and panic,” laying bare the “chasm across the Atlantic” regarding Russia.
However, the EU and the UK are by now well-versed in blunting any American attempts at resolving the Ukraine conflict, the publication claimed.
Their strategy presumably boils down to welcoming the “fact of Trump’s intervention, before slowly and politely smothering it.”
According to the British media outlet, Kiev’s European backers took the original 28-point proposal and removed nine key elements from it.
The EU and the UK have also allegedly mobilized the “Atlanticist wing in the Senate,” so that it mounts internal opposition to the peace framework.
Politico Europe and The Telegraph, citing anonymous sources, have recently claimed that the US has been keeping the EU “in the dark” regarding ongoing diplomacy on the peace proposal.
In an interview with the France-Russia Dialogue Association on Tuesday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that “no one listens to… the European elites” due to their warmongering attitudes.
Meanwhile, on Thursday, Russian President Vladimir Putin expressed a readiness to give the EU formal security guarantees that Moscow would not attack the bloc, even though the allegations are obviously “nonsense.”
Anduril, a $30B Silicon Valley defense startup building drones, surveillance equipment and C3I software for the US military, CBP and America’s allies, has sent tens of millions of dollars’ worth of drones to Ukraine since 2022.
But there’s a problem: Its products keep crashing before they can even be deployed.
Air Force testing this month involving two Anduril Altius multipurpose spy, communications, cyberwar and strike drones saw them ascend and slam into the ground. Summer testing of Anduril’s new Fury unmanned fighter damaged its engine before it could even take off, while an August test of the Anduril Anvil antidrone system caused a 22-acre fire in Oregon.
The US Navy has reported similar problems, with 30 drone boats operated by Anduril’s Lattice software shutting down during a deployment off California in May. Sailors said in a report that Anduril’s products suffered from “continuous operational security [and] safety violations, and contracting performer misguidances,” posing an “extreme risk” to US military personnel.
US Army drilling in Germany in January saw a Ghost spinning out and crashing near troops, with an Army spokesman confirming the drone’s issues with power management in cold temperatures.
And there’s another problem.
Although Ukraine’s military remains tightlipped about the performance of its Anduril equipment, an informed source told Reuters that the dozens of Ghost drones the company deployed in 2022 proved no match for Russian electronic warfare countermeasures, which jammed their satnav systems.
Meanwhile, sources told the Wall Street Journal that Anduril Altius drones were so problematic for Ukraine’s military that it stopped using them altogether in 2024.
The UK signed a $40M deal with Anduril in March for more Altius drones for Ukraine.
After four years, hundreds of witnesses, and nearly £200 million in costs, the UK Covid Inquiry has reached the one conclusion many expected: a carefully footnoted act of self-exoneration. It assiduously avoids asking the only question that truly matters: were lockdowns ever justified, did they even work, and at what overall cost to society?
The Inquiry outlines failure in the abstract but never in the human. It catalogues errors, weak decision-making structures, muddled communications, and damaged trust, but only permits examination of those failings that do not disturb the central orthodoxy.
It repeats the familiar refrain of “Too little, too late,” yet anyone paying attention knows the opposite was true. It was too much, too soon, and with no concern for the collateral damage. The government liked to speak of an “abundance of caution,” but no such caution was exercised to prevent catastrophic societal harm. There was no attempt to undertake even a basic assessment of proportionality or foreseeable impact.
Even those who approached the Inquiry with modest expectations have been startled by how far it fell below them. As former Leader of the UK House of Commons, Jacob Rees-Mogg recently observed, “I never had very high hopes for the Covid Inquiry… but I didn’t think it would be this bad.” Nearly £192 million has already been spent, largely enriching lawyers and consultants, to produce 17 recommendations that amount, in his words, to “statements of the obvious or utter banality.”
Two of those recommendations relate to Northern Ireland: one proposing the appointment of a Chief Medical Officer, the other an amendment to the ministerial code to “ensure confidentiality.” Neither insight required hundreds of witnesses or years of hearings. Another recommendation, that devolved administrations should have a seat at COBRA, reveals, he argues, “a naiveté of the judiciary that doesn’t understand how this country is governed.”
Rees-Mogg’s wider criticism goes to the heart of the Inquiry’s failures, as it confuses activity with accountability. Its hundreds of pages record bureaucratic process while ignoring substance. The same modeling errors that drove early panic are recycled without reflection; the Swedish experience is dismissed, and the Great Barrington Declaration receives a single passing mention, as if it were an eccentric sideshow. The report’s underlying message never wavers: lockdowns were right, dissent was wrong, and next time the government should act faster and with fewer restraints.
He also highlights its constitutional incoherence. It laments the lack of “democratic oversight,” yet condemns political hesitation as weakness. It complains that ministers acted too slowly, while elsewhere chastising them for bowing to public pressure. The result, he says, is “schizophrenic in its approach to accountability.” Behind the legal polish lies an authoritarian instinct, the belief that bureaucrats and scientists know best, and that ordinary citizens cannot be trusted with their own judgment.
The conclusions could have been drafted before the first witness entered the room:
Lockdowns were necessary.
Modelling was solid.
Critics misunderstood.
The establishment acted wisely.
It is the kind of verdict that only the British establishment could deliver about the British establishment.
The Inquiry treats the question of whether lockdowns worked as if the very question were indecent. It leans heavily on modeling to claim that thousands of deaths could have been avoided with earlier restrictions, modeling that is now widely recognised as inflated, brittle, and detached from real-world outcomes. It repeats that easing restrictions happened “despite high risk,” yet fails to note that infection curves were already bending before the first lockdown began.
Here Baroness Hallett makes her headline claim that “23,000 lives could have been saved” if lockdowns had been imposed earlier. That number does not come from a broad evidence base, but from a single modelling paper written by the same scientist who, days later, broke lockdown to visit his mistress because he did not believe his own advice or modeling figures. Treating Neil Ferguson’s paper as gospel truth is not fact-finding. It is narrative protection.
Even Dominic Cummings, Boris Johnson’s most influential adviser in early 2020, has accused the Inquiry of constructing what he calls a “fake history.” In a detailed post on X, he claimed it suppressed key evidence, ignored junior staff who were present at pivotal meetings, and omitted internal discussions about a proposed “chickenpox-party” infection strategy. He argued that the Inquiry avoided witnesses whose evidence would contradict its preferred story, and he dismissed the “23,000 lives” figure as politically spun rather than empirically credible. Whatever one thinks of Cummings, these are serious allegations from the heart of government, and the Inquiry shows little interest in addressing them.
It quietly concedes that surveillance was limited, urgency lacking, and spread poorly understood. These admissions undermine the very certainty with which it endorses lockdowns. Yet instead of re-examining its assumptions, the Inquiry sidesteps them. To avoid reconsidering lockdowns is to avoid the very heart of the matter, and that is exactly what it does.
During 2020 and 2021, fear was deployed and amplified to secure compliance. Masks were maintained “as a reminder.” Official documents advised that face coverings could serve not only as source control but as a “visible signal” and “reminder of COVID-19 risks,” a behavioural cue of constant danger.
The harms of lockdown are too numerous for a single list, but they include:
an explosion in mental health and anxiety disorders, especially in children and young adults
a surge in cancers, heart disease, and deaths of despair
developmental regressions in children
the collapse of small businesses and family livelihoods
profound social atomisation and damage to relationships
the erosion of trust in public institutions
The Inquiry brushes over these truths. Its recommendations focus on “impact assessments for vulnerable groups” and “clearer communication of rules,” bureaucratic language utterly inadequate to address the scale of the damage.
It also avoids the economic reckoning. Pandemic policy added 20 percent of GDP to the national debt in just two years, a cost already passed to children not yet old enough to read. That debt will impoverish their lives and shorten life expectancy, since wealth and longevity are closely linked.
Whenever Sweden is mentioned, a predictable chorus appears to explain away its success: better healthcare, smaller households, lower population density. Yet it is also true that Sweden resisted panic, trusted its citizens, kept schools open, and achieved outcomes better than or comparable to ours. The Inquiry refers vaguely to “international differences” but avoids the one comparison that most threatens its narrative. If Sweden shows that a lighter-touch approach could work, the entire moral architecture of Britain’s pandemic response collapses, and that is a question the Inquiry dares not ask.
The establishment will never conclude that the establishment failed, so the Inquiry performs a delicate dance:
Coordination was poor, but no one is responsible.
Communications were confusing, but the policies were sound.
Governance was weak, but the decisions were right.
Inequalities worsened, but that tells us nothing about strategy.
It acknowledges everything except the possibility that the strategy itself was wrong. Its logic is circular: lockdowns worked because the Inquiry says they worked; modeling was reliable because those who relied on it insist it was; fear was justified because it was used; Sweden must be dismissed because it challenges the story.
At times, reading the report feels like wandering into the Humpty Dumpty chapter of Through the Looking-Glass, where words mean whatever authority decides they mean. Evidence becomes “established” because the establishment declares it so.
A serious, intellectually honest Inquiry would have asked:
Did lockdowns save more lives than they harmed?
Why was worst-case modeling treated as fact?
Why were dissenting voices sidelined?
How did fear become a tool of governance?
Why did children bear so much of the cost?
Why was Sweden’s success dismissed?
How will future generations bear the debt?
How can trust in institutions be rebuilt?
Instead, the Inquiry offers administrative tweaks, clearer rules, broader committees, and better coordination that studiously avoid the moral and scientific questions. An Inquiry that evades its central task is not an inquiry at all, but an act of institutional self-preservation.
Perhaps we should not be surprised. Institutions rarely indict themselves. But the cost of this evasion will be paid for decades, not by those who designed the strategy, but by those who must live with its consequences: higher debt, diminished trust, educational loss, social fracture, and a political culture that has learned all the wrong lessons.
The Covid Inquiry calls itself a search for truth, but the British establishment will never allow something as inconvenient as truth to interfere with its instinct for self-preservation.
Trish Dennis is a lawyer, writer, and mother of five based in Northern Ireland. Her work explores how lockdowns, institutional failures, and social divides during Covid reshaped her worldview, faith, and understanding of freedom. On her Substack, Trish writes to record the real costs of pandemic policies, honour the courage of those who spoke out, and search for meaning in a changed world. You can find her at trishdennis.substack.com.
Famed Irish novelist Sally Rooney told the UK High Court on Thursday that she may be unable to publish new work in Britain as long as the legal ban on activist group Palestine Action remains in place, citing her public support for the movement, local media reported, Anadolu reports.
Rooney warned that the ban, issued this summer, could even result in her existing books being pulled from shelves, with her case presented in court as an example of the ban’s wider impact on freedom of expression, reported The Guardian.
Rooney praised Palestine Action’s activities as “courageous and admirable,” saying the group is committed to stopping what it views as crimes against humanity by Israel in its two-year military offensive on the Gaza Strip.
In her written witness statement, the bestselling author of Normal People and Conversations With Friends said the ban would leave her effectively shut out of the UK market, explaining: “It is … almost certain that I can no longer publish or produce any new work within the UK while this proscription remains in effect.”
“If Palestine Action is still proscribed by the time my next book is due for publication, then that book will be available to readers all over the world and in dozens of languages, but will be unavailable to readers in the United Kingdom simply because no one will be permitted to publish it (unless I am content to give it away for free).”
Since the group was banned, Rooney has said she plans to direct earnings from her work to Palestine Action, a decision that prompted her to cancel a UK trip to collect an award over concerns she could be arrested.
The legal ambiguity makes it hard to foresee the full impact of the ban, she said, but warned her publisher Faber & Faber might be barred from paying her royalties. If that happens, she said, “my existing works may have to be withdrawn from sale and would therefore no longer be available to readers in the UK.”
READ: A historic decline in sympathy for Israel in Britain, and an unprecedented rise in solidarity with Palestine in 2025
Adam Straw, representing UN special rapporteur Ben Saul, told the court that growing legal opinion holds the ban to be an unlawful interference under international law, adding that terrorism definitions “do not extend to serious damage to property,” referring to the group spray-painting Royal Air Force planes this July which was cited in the ban.
Representing the home secretary, Sir James Eadie argued that it is for the UK parliament to define terrorism, noting: “Parliament has decided what terrorism is, which includes serious damage to property, whether or not alongside it there is violence against people.”
The hearing will conclude on Tuesday, when the final day of the judicial review is held.
In attacks in Gaza since October 2023, Israel has killed nearly 70,000 people, mostly women and children, and injured over 170,000 others.
In November 2024, the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued an arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant over war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza.
From October 20 – November 21, 1962, a little-remembered conflict raged between China and India. The skirmish damaged India’s Non-Aligned Movement affiliation, firmly placing the country in the West’s orbit, while fomenting decades of hostility between the neighbouring countries. Only now are Beijing and New Delhi forging constructive relations, based on shared economic and political interests. A detailed academic investigation, ignored by the mainstream media, exposes how the war was a deliberate product of clandestine CIA meddling, specifically intended to further Anglo-American interests regionally.
In the years preceding the Sino-Indian War, tensions steadily brewed between China and India, in large part due to CIA machinations supporting Tibetan separatist forces. For example, in 1957, Tibetan rebels secretly trained on US soil were parachuted into the territory and inflicted major losses on Beijing’s People’s Liberation Army forces. The next year, these cloak-and-dagger efforts ratcheted significantly, with the agency airdropping weapons and supplies in Tibet to foment violent insurrection. By some estimates, up to 80,000 PLA soldiers were killed.
Mao Zedong was convinced that Tibetan revolutionaries, while ultimately US-sponsored, enjoyed a significant degree of support from India and used the country’s territory as a base of operations. These suspicions were significantly heightened by Tibet’s March 1959 uprising, which saw a vast outflow of refugees from the region to India, and the granting of asylum to the Dalai Lama, their CIA-supported leader, by New Delhi. Weeks later, at a Chinese Communist Party politburo meeting, Mao declared a “counteroffensive against India’s anti-China activities.”
He called for official CPC communications to “sharply criticise” India’s premier Jawaharlal Nehru, stating Beijing “should not be afraid of making him feel agitated or of provoking a break with him,” and “we should carry the struggle through to the end.” For example, it was suggested that “Indian expansionists” be formally accused of acting “in collusion” with “British imperialists” to “intervene openly in China’s internal affairs, in the hope of taking over Tibet.” Mao implored, “we… should not avoid or circumvent this issue.”
Ironically, Nehru was then viewed with intense suspicion by the West due to his Non-Aligned commitment and broadly socialist economic policies. Thus, he could not be trusted to support covert Anglo-American initiatives targeting China. Meanwhile, Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev considered Nehru an important prospective ally and was keen to maintain positive relations. Simultaneously, the Sino-Soviet Split, which commenced in February 1956 with Khrushchev’s notorious secret speech denouncing the rule of Joseph Stalin, was ever-deepening. Disagreements over India and Tibet only hastened the pair’s acrimonious divorce.
‘A weapon’
After months of official denunciations of Nehru’s policies toward Tibet, Beijing’s information war against India became physical in August 1959, with a series of violent clashes along the countries’ borders. Nehru immediately reached out to Moscow, pleading that they rein in their closest ally. This prompted a tense meeting in October 1959 between Khrushchev, his chief aides, and the CPC’s top leadership, at Mao’s official residence. Khrushchev belligerently asserted to his Chinese counterparts that their confrontations with New Delhi and unrest in Tibet were “your fault”.
The Soviet leader went on to caution about the importance of “preserving good relations” with Nehru and “[helping] him stay in power,” for if he was replaced, “who would be better than him?” Mao countered that India had “acted in Tibet as if it belonged to them,” and while Beijing also supported Nehru, “in the question of Tibet, we should crush him.” Assorted CPC officials then, one by one, forcefully asserted the recent border clashes were initiated by New Delhi. However, Khrushchev was highly dismissive.
“Yes, they began to shoot and they themselves fell dead,” he derisively retorted. A Soviet declaration of neutrality in the Sino-Indian dispute a month prior also provoked anger among the CPC contingent. Mao complained, “[the] announcement made all imperialists happy,” by publicly exposing rifts between Communist countries. Khrushchev et al were again unmoved by the suggestion. Yet, unbeknownst to attendees, they had all unwittingly stepped into a trap laid by the CIA, many years earlier.
In September 1951, a State Department memo declared, “The US should endeavor to use Tibet as a weapon for alerting” India “to the danger of attempting to appease any Communist government and, specially, for maneuvering [India] into a position where it will voluntarily adopt a policy of firmly resisting Chinese Communist pressure in south and east Asia.” In other words, it was believed that supporting Tibetan independence could force a Sino-Indian split. In turn, the Soviets might be compelled to take sides, deepening ruptures with Beijing.
This strategy informed CIA covert action in Tibet over the subsequent decade, which grew turbocharged when Allen Dulles became CIA chief in 1953. A dedicated, top-secret base was constructed for the separatists at Camp Hale, the US military’s World War II-era training facility in the Rocky Mountains. Local terrain – vertiginous, replete with dense forests – was reminiscent of Tibet, providing ample opportunity for insurgency practice. Untold numbers of militants were tutored there over many years.
At any given time, the CIA maintained a secret army of up to 14,000 Tibetan separatists in China. While the guerrillas believed Washington sincerely supported their secessionist crusade, in reality, the agency was solely concerned with creating security problems for Beijing, and resultantly inflicting economic and military costs on their adversary. As the Dalai Lama later lamented, the agency’s assistance was purely “a reflection of their anti-Communist policies rather than genuine support for the restoration of Tibetan independence.”
‘More susceptible’
Come October 1962, the CIA’s Tibetan operations had become such an irritant to China that PLA forces invaded India. Washington was well aware in advance that military action was imminent. A telegram dispatched to Secretary of State Dean Rusk five days prior to the war’s eruption forecast a “serious conflict” and laid out a detailed “line” to take for when the time came. First and foremost, the US would publicly make clear its “sympathy for the Indians and the problems posed by the Chinese intervention.”
However, it was considered vital to “be restrained in our expressions in the matter so as to give the Chinese no pretext for alleging any American involvement.” While New Delhi was already secretly receiving “certain limited purchases” of US military equipment, Washington would not actively “offer assistance” when war broke out. “It is the business of the Indians to ask,” the telegram noted. If such requests were forthcoming, “we will listen sympathetically to requests… [and] move with all promptness and efficiency to supply the items”:
“The US is giving assistance… designed to ease Indian military transport and communications problems. Additionally, the Departments of State and Defense are studying the availability on short notice and on terms acceptable to India of transport, communications and other military equipment in order to be prepared should the government of India request such US equipment.”
As predicted, the Sino-Indian conflict prompted Nehru to urgently reach out to Washington for military aid, a significant policy shift. Much of New Delhi’s political class duly adopted a pro-Western line, with calls for a review of the country’s Non-Aligned stance reverberating widely throughout parliament. Even Communist and Socialist parties that hitherto rejected any alliance with the US eagerly accepted the assistance. The CIA’s Tibetan operations had triumphed.
As a May 1960 Agency National Intelligence Estimate noted, “Chinese aggressiveness” toward New Delhi over Tibet had fostered “a more sympathetic view of US opposition to Communist China” among India’s leaders. This included “greater appreciation of the value of a strong Western – particularly US – position in Asia to counterbalance” Beijing’s influence regionally. However, the CIA noted how, as of writing, “Nehru has no intention of altering India’s basic policy of nonalignment, and the bulk of Indian opinion apparently still shares his attachment to this policy.”
The Sino-Indian War changed all that. A December 1962 Agency analysis of the conflict’s “outlook and implications” hailed New Delhi’s “metamorphosis”, which the CIA forecast would “almost certainly continue to open up new opportunities for the West.” The country was judged “more susceptible than ever before to influence by the US and the UK, particularly in the military field.” Conversely, the War had “seriously complicated the Soviet Union’s relations with India and aggravated its difficulties with China”:
“The USSR will place a high value on a continued close relationship with India. While its opportunity to build up lasting influence in the Indian military has virtually disappeared, it will probably continue to supply some military equipment and to maintain its economic ties with India.”
Subsequently, New Delhi began assisting Anglo-American intelligence gathering on China and became actively involved in CIA wrecking activities in Tibet. The Sino-Indian War’s spectre hung over relations between the two nations for many years thereafter, and border clashes occurred intermittently throughout. Now, though, as Donald Trump bemoaned in September, India appears enduringly “lost” to Beijing and its close partner Russia. Decades of determined US efforts to foment antagonism between the vast neighbours have come spectacularly undone, due to the sheer weight of geopolitical reality.
HEAT exposure could drive a dramatic rise in cardiovascular disease (CVD) burden across the USA over the next 25 years, with researchers warning that climate change and population ageing may combine to reverse decades of progress in heart health.
Heat Exposure Threatens Future Heart Health A new modelling study estimated that heat-attributable CVD burden could more than triple by 2050 under a high greenhouse gas emissions scenario, disproportionately affecting older adults and economically disadvantaged communities. … Full article
… Climate change and land use conversion have the potential to increase the frequency of encounters between snakes and humans. This situation arises due to changes in temperature and rainfall, the loss of natural habitats, and shifts in food sources, which drive snakes to move into areas closer to human activity.
Prof Mirza Dikari Kusrini, a lecturer in the Department of Forest Resource Conservation and Ecotourism, Faculty of Forestry and Environment (Fahutan) at IPB University, explained that climate change affects snakes’ behavior, distribution, and movement patterns. … Full article
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
Aletho News 