Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Peter Hitchens

  1. #1

    Peter Hitchens

    Conversations: Featuring Peter Hitchens, Journalist, Author and Broadcaster I

    Peter Hitchens interviewed by John Anderson, a former Australian politician who was the Deputy Prime Minister of Australia.

    The future and the decline of the West.

    8:50 - 11:30 strategy of socialists prevent free speech and make dialogue impossible

    34:30 - We're like the ant which can only see small things not big things (1984)

    Future part of which will be like China 'you're not allowed to think or speak.

    We have had it.

    19 V 2020.

    Well worth watching.

    Mail Online - Peter Hitchens blog
    This is Peter Hitchens’s Mail on Sunday column. We will not escape from this misery until the Government has been forced to admit that it made a foolish mistake and over-reacted wildly to Covid-19. The Prime Minister is like a man who sets fire to his own pyjamas, while he is wearing them, to cure himself of hiccups. Now he stands naked and scorched, as his house burns around him, and exults ...

    • Older Posts

      This is Peter Hitchens’s Mail on Sunday column. I have come to hate this beautiful …
    • Addiction

      This is Peter Hitchens's Mail on Sunday column. David Cameron is now paying the …
    • Brown. Gordon

      This is Peter Hitchens's Mail On Sunday Column. The biggest scandals go on for …
    • Christopher Hitchens

      This is Peter Hitchens's Mail on Sunday column. Last week saw one of the noblest …
    • Churchill Cult

      This is Peter Hitchens’s Mail on Sunday colum n. Politicians start the wars which ordinary …

    • Abortion

      This is Peter Hitchens’s Mail on Sunday column. Britain’s biggest police force is now …
    • Russia

      This is Peter Hitchens's Mail on Sunday column. I am a Doomster and a Gloomster, …
    • Mass Immigration

      This is Peter Hitchens's Mail On Sunday column . The stupidest thing to come out of …
    • UKIP

      This is Peter Hitchens's Mail on Sunday column. The astonishing case of Professor …
    • Miss Greta Thunberg

      PETER HITCHENS: Yes, Miss Greta Thunberg, back when I was 16 I knew everything too...

  2. #2

  3. #3

    My suspicion is that the wrecking of the economy and the state-sponsored panic of these times has killed more people than Covid ever did

    Actually, I have had enough. So should you have had enough. The time has come for real discontent, or there will be no end to our mistreatment and humiliation by this Government.

    To call these people incompetent would be to pay them an over-generous compliment. We shall see in a minute what might be a better word. This is not personal grievance. By great good fortune, I managed a swift holiday a few weeks ago, and was not caught by any sudden Government panic measure, though the holiday itself, in places I love, was a sad shadow of what it would once have been.

    So my anger about the crazy quarantining of travellers to France is not self-interested. This heartless smashing of the simple pleasures of thousands is a futile act of spite. Do you know how many people officially died of Covid-19 in France during the past week? Fewer than 80. In April, official deaths in that country peaked at more than 1,400 in a single day.

    These figures of so-called ‘cases’ mean nothing except that the authorities have been looking harder for such cases, and finding them, even though the people involved are usually not ill. A similar panic in New Zealand concerns an outbreak in which (at the last count) one person was in hospital.

    Everything about the figures we are given has been fraudulent and wrong. We will never know how many people were listed as Covid deaths in this country, whose true cause of death was something else. The rules on classifying them were shockingly lax, and almost no post-mortems were held, so we can never check. But the London Government was last week forced to admit that for some time its official death figures have been a wild overstatement of the facts. Somehow this colossal event was pushed on to inside pages and way down BBC bulletins, but let me tell you the UK’s total death toll has been revised down from 46,706 to 41,329, a fall of 5,377. That, as you might have noticed, is an error of more than 10%, a huge admission.

    They were forced into this by the brilliant forensic work of Professor Carl Heneghan and his brave colleagues at Oxford’s Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, which showed that the previous figures were so loose that they could have included car-crash victims who once tested positive for Covid.

    Even the fatuous Health Commissar Matt Hancock had to accept that for months, his department had been publishing bilge as if it was information. I promise you here that, when sanity and respect for facts once again resume their reign in this country (if they ever do), then it will prove to be far worse than that.

    My suspicion is that the wrecking of the economy and the state-sponsored panic of these times has killed more people than Covid ever did, and the research on this is piling up too, though the BBC would prefer not to mention that either. A paper submitted to the Government’s own scientific advisory group, SAGE, estimated that 16,000 people had died up to May 1, thanks to missed medical care following the shutdown of the country. They suggested another 26,000 could die by next March for the same reason. If these figures are right (and I believe they will be vindicated by hard research), the Government’s flailing panic killed two people for every three who died of coronavirus – and that is assuming the Covid death figures are not inflated.

    The scale of this error is so great that the mind turns away from it. Add to it the slow but relentless destruction of the economy and the catastrophe in the schools, and you have even more to weep over.

    Bit by bit, people are finding out what a recession actually means in terms of lost jobs, busted businesses and ravaged pensions. This is all now inevitable, and only weeks away. Meanwhile, thousands of teenagers have been robbed of an essential part of their education, which they can never get back. Thanks to bungles piled on top of folly, they now face stupid injustice, broken hopes and the cold face of bureaucracy. Those responsible for this have a terrible load on their consciences.

    Back in March, their famous SAGE committee produced a document, ‘Options for increasing adherence to social distancing measures’. It concluded that we were not yet frightened enough. It said: ‘A substantial number of people still do not feel sufficiently personally threatened.’ So we needed to be scared into compliance. It recommended: ‘The perceived level of personal threat needs to be increased among those who are complacent, using hard-hitting emotional messaging.’ So the hidden persuaders went to work with their doom-laden warnings, their house arrest, their claims that we are all toxic to each other, and their swollen death tolls. Now they seek to keep up the anxiety levels by trying to make us wear loose, soggy muzzles.

    And here we are, perhaps for ever, unless we begin to show a bit of spirit. Remember how we used to boast about how unflappable we were, with our ‘Keep calm and carry on’ posters. Well, we are not unflappable. We have been well and truly flapped, and this is the price you pay for it.

    Peter Hitchens on the fake death figures: Even the fatuous Health Commissar Matt Hancock had to accept that for months his department had been publishing bilge as if it was information


    16 VII 2020.

  4. #4

    The greatest power we have is to refuse to vote for people who insult us - so save democracy and vote for my None Of The Below Party

    Refuse to vote for people who insult us - save democracy by voting for my None Of These listed on the Ballot Paper.

    Did democracy die the other night when Donald Trump and Joe Biden scuffled, snarled and shouted over each other, showing utter contempt for anyone intelligent who was watching?

    People who loathe freedom, such as the Chinese Politburo in Peking, must have rejoiced at this spectacle of incoherence and crudity.

    But there’s no point in us feeling superior to those raucous Americans. Our own political debates are as mindless in their own way, and our elections decided not by reasoned discussion but by unchecked bending of the spending rules, by unscrupulous hidden persuaders.

    If this was the end of democracy, it hasn’t lasted long. Full democracy only arrived in the USA in 1913 when they first started electing the Senate.

    It finally came to Britain in 1948 when they abolished the University seats in Parliament which gave graduates extra votes.

    I’d say it has not been much of a success, launching an era when people were repeatedly bribed with their own money, by increasingly cynical political careerists.

    And since the advertising men got involved in the 1950s, slippery manipulators have taken over. Image, not truth, has been at the centre of every major campaign. All very well, until the image turns out to be false and the promises undeliverable or untrue. It doesn’t matter that Harold Wilson preferred cigars to a pipe and brandy to beer.

    It did matter that his supposedly mainstream 1964-70 Government launched a series of searing, painful and often mistaken changes in our society which had never been put before the people, and whose real nature had been concealed. Left-wingers might make similar charges against Ted Heath and Margaret Thatcher, as neither of them were what they appeared to be. But to this day, few people have grasped the enormous revolutionary programme of the 1997 Blair Government. Blair, a former student Trotskyist (a fact which was dishonestly concealed at the time and for years afterwards) was in fact a fervent social radical.

    What Wilson had begun – revolutions in family life, crime and punishment, education and welfare – Blair finished. He also browbeat the Tories into going along with it all and leaving it untouched.

    This is why you never get what you want when you vote. The debate is elsewhere. You are just required to endorse it by voting for it. Your vote, in the modern age, gives legitimacy to the powerful. They will spend a lot of money to get that vote, but it is a false bargain. They do not really care what you want, but they have got a lot better at pretending that they do. To me, it has been obvious for years that we should stop playing this game. The greatest power we have is to refuse to vote for people who insult us. My simple proposal is that the words ‘None Of The Below’ should appear at the top of every ballot paper.

    In all seats where ‘None Of The Below’ tops the poll, all the losing parties and candidates should be prevented from standing in the rerun which would then be held a month later. In the interval, new political formations which truly reflect the divisions in our society should select candidates who are quite free from the careerism, conformism and inexperience of life which seem to be the main qualifications for MPs in these times.

    After the spineless confirmation of the scandalous Coronavirus Act last week – in which almost all MPs declared that they do not care about the country or the livelihoods and freedom of the people – can you think of a better idea? Begone, all of you, and let us have done with you.

    The BBC’s big new star? Cannabis

    I thought I would at least try the BBC’s two new autumn dramas, Us and Life. Well, I have tried them and stopped watching them. Apart from their incessant anti-marriage propaganda, in which the married family is portrayed pretty much as the root of all evil, they use respectable, much-liked actors and actresses to normalise drug-taking.

    Middle-aged respectable Tom Hollander, in Us, is shown boasting in Amsterdam to his son about his youthful drug use, trying to be hip by using druggie jargon (‘I had a massive whitey’). Middle-aged respectable Alison Steadman, in revolt against her nasty, belittling husband in Life, is shown on a doorstep sharing a joint with the much-liked ‘disability ambassador’ Melissa Johns, who previously played Imogen Pascoe in Coronation Street.

    This is pretty much product placement. In the case of Life, it is also a direct breach of the BBC’s own rules against portraying crime in drama, as they well know. But nothing will happen.

    A crucial clue that links so many killings

    The heartbreaking death of respected police officer Matiu Ratana has rightly caused much grief and concern. But once again, one of the most crucial facts of modern life, quite possibly involved here, has been pushed to one side in absurd speculation about the supposed terrorist links of the suspect, as it was after the stabbings in a Reading park last June.

    In both cases I had no need to wait long to find that there were allegations the suspect had been a user of marijuana, a drug whose use is increasingly correlated with mental illness and violent crime.

    As it happened, I had also been looking into another case in a major UK city I will not for the moment name, of a young marijuana user. This person, well known to neighbours and police for increasingly erratic and violent behaviour, has also been found in possession of the drug. And there is little doubt that he is a long-term user. In fact, neighbours recall his transformation from a pleasant and likeable boy into the miserable husk he has now become, after he began using a drug which is absurdly promoted as mild and harmless (see my item on the BBC’s new dramas, left).

    I begin to think we shall not wake up to this until the time to act has passed.

    Hancock’s using crude propaganda

    The Health Secretary, Matt Hancock, seems to be entirely unaware of many important facts which have become clear over the past few months. Especially, he has not noticed that wild predictions of mass deaths, made in Sweden and this country in March, were not borne out in reality.

    The important thing about this is that Sweden did not follow Mr Hancock’s policy of severe compulsory restrictions of normal life. The Swedes did not ‘let the virus rip’, as the zealots like to claim. They took moderate precautions. Yet the predicted deaths did not take place. In fact, evidence from around the world still shows no connection between dictatorial, punitive rules and lower deaths.

    Yet in Parliament on Thursday, Mr Hancock sneered at one of his rare Commons critics, the Shipley MP Philip Davies. The Minister said: ‘It is perfectly reasonable to make the argument that we should just let the virus rip; I just think that the hundreds of thousands of deaths that would follow is not a price that anyone should pay.’ Mr Hancock, whose grasp of fact seems to me to be sketchy in general, has no reason to say that ‘hundreds of thousands’ of deaths would follow a wiser, more proportionate policy. He could say it was possible, or that he thought it likely, but he does not know that it would happen, and he must be aware of the work of eminent scientists who think it would not happen.

    And the caricature, that critics wish to ‘let the virus rip’, is shameful, crude propaganda rather than an argument.

    "Bottom line is always the money"

    It is a large part of it and is certainly what most of the career politicians and vaccine investors are looking at. But besides a corporate power grab which plunges billions into debt and dependency, I think there is another agenda behind it. The main theme is getting you to adapt to becoming a slave. But they know if they come with force there will be massive resistance to it. So what they say is that it's for your health - the good of the community. That's the Trojan horse to trick you to give your consent to what they are doing, and at that point they have no liability on the vaccine or what happens to you. Again, the power they have is the power you give them. Gates has even said that up to 80% of those who take the vaccine will get sick and 20% could be hospitalised. On those types of numbers, what fool would take a vaccine made by them for a disease with kills fewer than 99% of those who get it? Another thing which could explain the fanaticism of those driving this is what they really want - immortality. They are looking for the immortal cell lines and the only way they're going to get it is by a worldwide testing dragnet of samples to try and discover what they believe will turn them into Gods.

    PETER HITCHENS: Save democracy and vote for ... -

    12 X 2020.

  5. #5

    Britons are being sentenced to death by PM Johnson’s No 10 Panic Squad.

    One of the filthiest tactics of the Panic Merchants is to claim that anyone who opposes their strangling of the country is callous and cares only about money, not life.

    Dissenters have been pelted with slime of this kind by Johnson, the man who ruined Britain, and by his dense sidekick, Hancock – perhaps the first Health Secretary in history who does not know that malaria is spread by mosquitoes. They tell us we wish to ‘let the virus rip’. Well, Johnson and Hancock, if you care so much about lives, get in touch with Lisa King, as I did. Ask her to tell you about how her husband Peter, a retired taxi driver aged 62, died.

    It is a horrible, upsetting story, involving a grown man screaming in agony. And in my view it is an absolutely direct consequence of Hancock’s conversion of the NHS into a National Covid Service which treats everything else as a nuisance. Peter King was grudgingly granted (as so many now are) a remote session with a GP who, unable to meet him, and apparently ignorant of his records, diagnosed his severe chest discomfort as reflux. I am not especially interested in blaming this doctor. Under the conditions created by Hancock, he was presumably doing his best. But it was not good enough. Actually the trouble was far more serious – a stone trapped in his gall bladder – and the resulting delay meant he was overcome with indescribable pain a few days later. Peter was given emergency surgery to reduce the agony, but needed a more radical operation. He was put on the urgent list for it. But this was still too late. He fell terribly ill again and despite the heroic efforts of paramedics, he died. The many years of happy life which Peter and Lisa King might otherwise have had were wiped out for ever.

    This is not just some isolated case. Something like 25 million appointments with GPs / Doctors have been lost as a result of the Johnson Government’s panic (not as a result of Covid, as the hopelessly pro-Government BBC always says. The Government had a choice over how to respond, and took the wrong path). Millions have not had referrals for diagnoses including cancer and heart disease. Some of them will have been scythed down as Peter King was. Others will have been needlessly damaged in smaller, slower ways. But this is what Johnson and Hancock have let rip – needless pain, needless death. Let them never again dare to pretend that their original bungle, and the later months in which they have tried to save themselves from deserved disgrace, were the only way to save lives. I suspect their panic may well in the end kill more than Covid ever did or could have done. We are in the hands of fools who will not admit they have made a terrible mistake.

    Those still taken in by the cuddly, caring ‘Boris’ image of Prime Minister Johnson may wish to study his impatient, callous response to a distressing question in the Commons last week about the absurd cladding rules which are preventing thousands from moving home, often at horrible personal cost. Dulwich MP Helen Hayes asked about a constituent, Luke Thomas, recently diagnosed with terminal cancer. He urgently needs to move closer to his family for support but cannot sell his flat as it does not have the accursed EWS1 form (mentioned here last week) which is pointlessly blocking so many from moving. Mr Thomas has no time to wait for relief. Ms Hayes asked: ‘When will the Prime Minister end this scandal?’ He brushed this off, referring her to an equally useless answer he gave earlier. If he cares, it does not show. If only this grim nightmare was still just fiction.

    So far, the new Sky TV version of Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World is not as bad as I feared it would be. It is hard to bring this brilliant, bitter book to the screen. So much of Huxley’s fantasy came true long before he predicted it would, so a lot of it is just not shocking any more. When Huxley wrote it in the 1930s, lifelong marriage was normal and looked as if it would stay that way, children were the expected result of sex, and drug-taking was despised. His clever idea that a future society would actively encourage promiscuity, abolish parenthood and privacy, and make drug-taking compulsory was too good a prophecy. It’s almost all happened. And, as Huxley feared, we have come to love our own enslavement by pleasure. I use to think Huxley had been completely right and George Orwell’s alternative nightmare of a surveillance state based on terror, secret police spies and torture had been wrong. But recently I’ve come to the grim conclusion that we will end up with a mixture of both.

    Sir Keir shows his true colours: deepest red

    The supposedly moderate Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer has at last revealed himself as the fanatic he really is, with his wild calls for even more mass destruction of the jobs and livelihoods of Labour voters in a so-called ‘circuit-breaker’. I am not surprised. Most people who report on politics in this country do not understand the subject, lacking the Marxist training which I had in my distant youth. They call Sir Keir ‘moderate’ because he is not Jeremy Corbyn. A fat lot they know.

    Jeremy Corbyn is, of course, a wild Leftist, a man of clenched-fist salutes, street protests and red banners who probably dreams of storming Buckingham Palace at the head of a detachment of Red Guards. But he is one of the obvious, old-fashioned sort, steam-powered, coal-fired. You can see him a mile off and defeat him with ease. Sir Keir is much more dangerous. His fanaticism is as smooth as the moisturizer he applies daily to his handsome face. It is designed for the age of the internet.

    But you will have to search hard for any major media mention of his stint, in his mid-20s, on the editorial board of a Trotskyist magazine called Socialist Alternatives. Its few issues can still be read on the internet. I have read them, though most of Sir Keir’s articles were written with the blunt end of a bread pudding, and are hard going. Ah, you may say, this was just youthful folly. People change. He’s even taken a knighthood. Except Sir Keir has not changed much. This is the age he was born for.

    In an interview with the New Statesman, he recently said: ‘I don’t think there are big issues on which I’ve changed my mind… The big issue we were grappling with then was how the Labour Party, or the Left generally, bound together the wider movement and its strands of equality – feminist politics, green politics, LGBT – which I thought was incredibly exciting, incredibly important. Broadly speaking, I think the Labour Party has done that very successfully.’

    The sect he was mixed up with in the 1980s helped pioneer the New Left – Green mixed with Red, radical sexual politics. ‘Red must be made Green, and Green must be made Red,’ they said. This way of thinking has no time for the clapped-out yelling and posturing of the Corbynites. It wants a cultural revolution which leaves all the buildings standing but changes everything that goes on inside them. It might find a huge economic and social convulsion, such as Johnson has visited on us, very convenient for that purpose.

    Britons are being sentenced to a slow, agonising death... by No 10's panic squad, writes PETER HITCHENS

    17 October 2020

  6. #6

    The war on marriage? It is all about controlling YOUR children.

    Why does our new power elite hate lifelong marriage so much? Why does the legal arm of that elite, the Supreme Court, hand out what is left of the privileges of marriage to those who won’t get married, as it did with the widowed parents’ allowance on Thursday?

    Why does the propaganda arm of our ruling class, the BBC, promote a drama called Wanderlust with publicity which, in the BBC’s own words, ‘asks whether lifelong monogamy is possible – or even desirable’. You know as well as I do that they’re not really asking. They are saying, amid countless wearisome and embarrassing bedroom scenes, that it is neither possible nor desirable. This is a lie, as millions of honest, generous and kind men and women proved in the better generations which came before this one.

    Our modern upper crust hate marriage because it is a fortress of private life. They hate it above all because they can’t control it, because it is the place where the next generation learn how to be distinct, thinking individuals instead of conformist robots.

    It is where they discover the truth about the past, the lore of the tribe, the traditions and beliefs that make us who we are. It is where they become capable of being free. But our new rulers don’t want that. They don’t want fully formed people who know who they are and where they come from. They want obedient, placid consumers, slumped open-mouthed in front of screens, drugged into flaccid apathy (legally or illegally, the Government don’t care which), slaving all hours in the dreary low-wage, high-tax economy they are so busily creating.

    Much better if they’ve never heard of the great golden drama of our national history and literature, so they don’t know what they’re missing and don’t care.

    They would prefer the young to be brought up in a sort of moral car park, knowing nothing except what they are told by authority and the advertising industry. In this brave new world, sex is a spectacle and a sport, solemn oaths are worthless, and duty is a joke. In this, they are much like the Soviet Communists, who deliberately made divorce as easy as crossing the road, and made absolutely sure that hardly any parents could afford to stay at home to raise their own children.

    They have not yet gone quite as far as them – Soviet children were encouraged to worship, as a martyr, a semi-mythical figure called Pavlik Morozov, who was supposedly killed by his grandfather after informing on his own parents to the secret police. Russian friends of mine brought up in this vicious cult shuddered at the memory. But if you look carefully, you will see a ghostly shadow of this culture of denunciation growing up in our midst. And, as we forget all our long history of freedom and justice, it will become easier for such things to happen.

    After all, we have long been used to the sight, on TV, of police officers smashing down front doors, or conducting dawn raids – and of being expected to approve of it.

    An Englishman’s home is not his castle. And his life is not his own. That is what all this means, and will mean.

    Amid the grunts and the creaking of bedsprings, and the pompous phrases of the judges, listen hard and you can hear them weaving Britain’s winding sheet.

    The war on marriage? It is all about controlling YOUR children 02 September 2018

    26 XI 2020.

    Marriage is a European / Christian relationship which gave the women security to have children and to rear them.
    Africoons don’t have life-long monogamous relationships.
    Muslims have a different social order too. 4 wifes . . .
    The spread of Christianity to South America and elsewhere promoted the European marriage custom as formalizing male/female relationships.

    Today’s ‘War on Marriage’ is about population reduction and control. A single Mother will have a lot less children. One parent will never do the job of two parents. These are undisputable facts.

    The 'new power elite' don't want well balanced functional people.

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to jagdmesser For This Useful Post:

  8. #7

    Vote Blue, get Green. Vote Red, get Green. Vote Yellow, get Green. Vote SNP, get Green. I wonder why they bother even having an actual Green Party.

    So in yet another way, Britain is coming more and more to resemble the old East Germany. Really? Yes. The East Berlin commissars would have applauded our frenzied desire to rip small children from the arms of their mothers and stuff them into nurseries while their parents marched off to work. They would have smiled on our easy divorce, our comprehensive schools and on our crawling state broadcaster, regurgitating party propaganda and closing the airwaves to dissent. But above all they would have recognised our fake Parliament – plenty of different parties but only one opinion.

    Did you know that Communist East Germany had a Liberal Party and a nominally conservative allegedly Christian Democrat Party? They did. They even had general elections, at which you could vote for these fakes (voting against was trickier, and staying at home would also get you noticed). But like ours, they were all the same. And like ours, they represented the elite to the people, rather than the other way round.

    What does Green mean anyway? It doesn’t mean you love the planet. It means you love a slogan. I have always been a defender of our natural heritage. I feel almost physical pain at the sight and sound of a tree being cut down. I mourned the destruction of the railways and the tyranny of the motor car which resulted. I have for 40 years endured the mockery of colleagues and the spite of drivers for riding a bicycle, alas for me in a Right-wing way. I paid over the odds to travel abroad by train rather than plane, long before Greta Thunberg was even born. But none of this counts in my favour. Because the new Green Frenzy is a faith-based dogma, not a set of considered opinions.

    As Labour leader Keir Starmer discovered in his Trotskyist 20s, a moralising, self-righteous alleged concern for the planet is the new Marxism. It’s not a moral system. It is organised hypocrisy in which you show you are good by saying the right thing. Actions don’t matter. It’s your mind they care about. If you’re a Hollywood star, you can fly first class and ride in a petrol-gulping car just so long as you swear allegiance to the Cult of Greta. But you may be sure that others will suffer for it, whether they like it or not.

    The wild plans embraced by Johnson last week will cost billions in subsidies, and so in taxes. They will endanger the power supply. They will also mean more children slaving for small change in the hellish mines of the Congo, to find the raw materials for the batteries on which this noble project relies. Life, you may be sure, will be poorer, darker, colder and generally glummer, again, quite a bit like East Germany. So it is probably a good thing that we are rapidly losing our freedom to object, that our new People’s Police get bossier every day, and most of us seem to quite enjoy being told what to do.

    A murky war... and a cruel sting in the tail

    When the former British Army officer James Le Mesurier was found dead in an Istanbul street a year ago, many people feared foul play. Le Mesurier, by all accounts a brave and charming man, had made many sinister enemies through his involvement in the murky Syrian crisis. And now an utterly fascinating BBC Radio 4 series, Mayday, is trying to explain the affair. It deals some pretty hefty blows to naive defenders of the cruel, torture-based Assad regime in Syria. I’d say the programme is pretty much on the side of Mr Le Mesurier, and of the long campaign to draw Britain into the Syrian civil war.

    But can I urge caution on that? As the programme admits, the famous White Helmets, a brilliantly publicised rescue squad which Le Mesurier helped set up with lots of money from Britain and other major powers, have their problems. What were their relations with the Islamist fanatics in the areas where they worked? And what happened to the Western money? The BBC has carefully mentioned (among other failings) the appearance of one White Helmet in a jihadi recruitment video, and the presence of two White Helmets at an Islamist ‘execution’, ie murder (they carried away the body). It has also reported claims that the White Helmets shared a building in Aleppo with Al Qaeda sympathisers. I am not as reassured as the programme’s presenter seems to be by the organisation’s PR promises that these supposedly isolated incidents have been dealt with.

    Then there’s the money problem. Mayday Rescue was the name of the organisation through which the cash (estimated at more than £80 million) was funnelled. There is some pretty devastating evidence of its finances being in a terrible mess. It was so bad the Dutch foreign ministry withdrew support. Our own Foreign Office told me, when asked about this: ‘Upon being made aware of the allegations, the UK and other donors suspended further funding to Mayday Rescue and requested they commission an independent forensic investigation into the claims, which has since taken place.’ The official position is now that there were ‘gaps’ in the records (quite big ones, I think), but no evidence of fraud or misappropriation of funds.

    No doubt it is best to leave Le Mesurier to rest in peace, and it is not my purpose to attack him. But I think intervention in Syria was a grave mistake, and almost bound to lead us into such swamps.By backing fanatical Islamist forces against Assad, we took sides with a scorpion against a cobra. It was always only a question of whether we would get bitten or stung, or both. I asked the BBC last week for viewing figures for the panel show Question Time, to see how they compared with the recent and distant past. The BBC refused to provide them.

    Proof that the mask zealots can’t have it both ways

    Can a Covid virus move only one way through a mask? Or can it go both in and out? Because if it can go both ways, we now know that all this mask-wearing is an almost complete waste of time.Barely noticed in any major media, a serious Danish trial of the effectiveness of masks finally reported its findings on Wednesday. Three major scientific journals (shame on them) had refused to publish it – one can only guess why.

    The Danes did it properly. They recruited almost 5,000 people. Half wore masks, of rather better quality than the sort mainly worn in Britain. Half didn’t. All lived normal lives. They kept it up for a month. At the end, 1.8 per cent of mask wearers tested positive, and 2.1 per cent of the unmasked tested positive for Covid. In other words, there was almost no difference. Everyone’s been very careful to say it didn’t measure whether wearing a mask protected others. Not directly. But I’d say that, unless masks and viruses are both one-directional, the answer is pretty clear. Yet with this kind of thin evidence for masks, our Government still threatens non-wearers with tyrannical, ruinous fines of up to £6,400.

    Vote Blue, get Green, Vote Red , get Green, Vote Yellow, get Green - Why do they bother having a Green Party?

    03 I 2021.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 2
    Last Post: Wednesday, April 8th, 2009, 10:48 PM
  2. The Hollow Men: Hitchens, Dawkins, and Harris (on the shallowness of modern atheism)
    By Taras Bulba in forum Agnosticism, Atheism, & Irreligion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Sunday, September 2nd, 2007, 08:44 PM
  3. Classify Peter Stormare
    By Väring in forum Anthropological Taxonomy
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: Saturday, February 11th, 2006, 11:26 PM


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts