It shouldn’t be about going after politicians for “not implementing restrictions rigorously enough”. It should be about going after them because they staged a globally-coordinated “plandemic” of democide at the behest of their psychopathic globalist overlords, see https://metatron.substack.com/p/reiner-fuellmichs-grand-jury-court.
While I certainly agree that mainstream press is controlled to a very significant degree, and that many people/forces/organisations will spin the avoidable covid/care home deaths to mean that restrictions should have been sooner and harder and longer-lasting, etc., I'm uncertain of the logic in dismissing as counter-productive 'calls for justice' and pursuing political accountability for corruption and malfeasance, greed, idiocy, tyranny, etc. Are you suggesting that the works of Prof Richard Werner, Michael Mansfield QC/KC (peoplescovidinquiry.com and actionagainst5G.org), TogetherDeclaration.org, Prof Tim Noakes, Anna Brees, Ivor Cummins, Nick Hudson, Roger Hodkinson, Maajid Nawaz, Tess Lawrie, Steve Kirsch, to name a few examples, are misguided and counter-productive?
And anyway, I'm not convinced that anyone can predict the future :)
The most alarming thing about this is that Hancock thought it safe to share these communications with a journalist, reminds me of Boris's drinks parties during lockdowns, journalists were aware of that and said nothing for nearly a year.
Journalists AND politicians are in the same bed, the public are their toys.
The argument made by Adam Edwards here is in the context of the care-home debate, where some people believe restrictions were not hard enough. If it is found they were not, future pandemics could see much tougher rules, which we know are not needed.
For all other issues, we would agree with you; those responsible are fair game and should be held accountable.
It shouldn’t be about going after politicians for “not implementing restrictions rigorously enough”. It should be about going after them because they staged a globally-coordinated “plandemic” of democide at the behest of their psychopathic globalist overlords, see https://metatron.substack.com/p/reiner-fuellmichs-grand-jury-court.
While I certainly agree that mainstream press is controlled to a very significant degree, and that many people/forces/organisations will spin the avoidable covid/care home deaths to mean that restrictions should have been sooner and harder and longer-lasting, etc., I'm uncertain of the logic in dismissing as counter-productive 'calls for justice' and pursuing political accountability for corruption and malfeasance, greed, idiocy, tyranny, etc. Are you suggesting that the works of Prof Richard Werner, Michael Mansfield QC/KC (peoplescovidinquiry.com and actionagainst5G.org), TogetherDeclaration.org, Prof Tim Noakes, Anna Brees, Ivor Cummins, Nick Hudson, Roger Hodkinson, Maajid Nawaz, Tess Lawrie, Steve Kirsch, to name a few examples, are misguided and counter-productive?
And anyway, I'm not convinced that anyone can predict the future :)
Thanks anyway. All debate is helpful IMHO.
The most alarming thing about this is that Hancock thought it safe to share these communications with a journalist, reminds me of Boris's drinks parties during lockdowns, journalists were aware of that and said nothing for nearly a year.
Journalists AND politicians are in the same bed, the public are their toys.
So far the Whatsapp scoop appears to be a limited hangout. I hope I'm wrong about that.
Can't read anything written by someone who actually thinks Osama Bin Laden took down the twin towers.
The argument made by Adam Edwards here is in the context of the care-home debate, where some people believe restrictions were not hard enough. If it is found they were not, future pandemics could see much tougher rules, which we know are not needed.
For all other issues, we would agree with you; those responsible are fair game and should be held accountable.