I hear there is a massive run on white paint at B&Q this month. Junior civil servants—the ones that can be prised out of their houses (still WFH)—are being dispatched to their local DIY stores to purchase brilliant white gloss and large paint rollers in preparation for the UK Covid-19 Inquiry. This is so that the inquiry can ‘gloss’ over the facts and publish a whitewash of all the criminal masterminds who orchestrated the (mis)management of the pandemic.
The SAGE group of government advisers—a veritable hotbed of these criminals—was disbanded earlier this month. In my view, disbanding was not enough. My perfect vision for the final proroguing meeting would have been to insist that they all met in person in London with the promise of a slap up lunch, plenty of champagne and a smattering of knighthoods. Once they had all basked in the glare of mutual admiration and stuffed themselves with self-congratulation, they should have been shown the door from which they were all marched into prison vans and carted off to Wormwood Scrubs. For that is where they ought to be.
Admittedly a few members of SAGE are beginning to break ranks and admit their models were ‘at variance to reality’ (why can’t they just say they were wrong?) and one member Professor Mark Woolhouse, author of The Year the World Went Mad, has been frank about the mistakes of locking down and, remarkably, has revealed that Whitty and Vallance put pressure on him not to try to reassure the public but to ramp up the fearmongering. Nevertheless, Professor Woolhouse may also deserve some time sewing mailbags for voting for the first lockdown on 23 March 2020, but he could get remission for cooperating and turning Queen’s evidence.
Professor David Livermore of the University of East Anglia has held fast throughout the pandemic by accepting nothing and questioning everything. He is also a member of the HART group which, likewise, has been consistent. He recently published an article in The Daily Sceptic, summarised on the HART webpage, which pointed out the deficiencies in the terms of reference of the UK Covid-19 Inquiry. Specifically, he indicated that there was no reference to any of the following (I paraphrase):
- The accountability of advisory groups like SAGE
- The abuse of propaganda
- The harms of the vaccines
- The ‘benefit’ of lockdown
Surely that final point is a glaring omission. Lockdown was not evidence-based, not recommended and has had a devastating and probably permanent effect on the people and the economy of our country. Without the four points above being the main focus of an inquiry, let alone being included in the first place, it makes you wonder what the inquiry will actually consider. Well, strap yourselves in and take a look at them. There is a lot about ‘preparedness and resilience’. Lockdown and face coverings are included but we already know what they think about these things: one was a rip-roaring success and the other saved millions of lives! Next up is a cracker: they will ‘listen to the experiences of bereaved families and others who have suffered hardship or loss as a result of the pandemic’. This is ridiculous; it wasn’t the pandemic that caused hardship it was the government which stopped us all from working, socialising and seeing our dying relatives. And then the pièce de résistance: ‘the inquiry will not investigate individual cases of harm or death in detail’. You bet they won’t. I have no idea if we can influence the terms of reference of the public inquiry but it may be worth trying and they are consulting on this right now. Make your voice heard.
Opinions from the Unity News Network (UNN) editorial team & various contributors. | UNN always clearly distinguishes between news and opinion pieces and as an open minded outlet we publish views from a variety of people and organisation that do not necessarily reflect the views of UNN or its writers. Articles published under UNN Opinions are always opinion pieces and if published on behalf of a contributor will contain that authors name at the start of the piece.
