As promised, there was a small contingent of anti-lockdown/scamdemic protesters from the group Save Our Rights. They are now putting some of their focus on authoritarian bills being passed by the Tory government, and were out there to oppose that.
The Anti-Brexit Liberals
Yes, the anti-Brexit liberals were there and they did some dancing around too.
A group of people opposing smart motorways.
Jewish people supporting Palestine.
This group was protesting the attempts by the Tories to prevent boycott of Israeli goods.
A group of people protesting against what is going on in Tigray.
The People’s Assembly.
A whole cavalcade of left leaning political groups and unions.
There was also an anti-Iranian government protest in a completely different place that converged on Centenary Square later on.
…and me, there to represent the Free Julian Assange message.
The leftist groups were in Victoria Square, and the others were in Centenary Square. (For those who don’t know the geography these are 5min away from each other).
The left-wing protest in Victoria Square was due to kick off at 1pm. The other protesters in Centenary Square were there earlier. The left wingers also went for a march around the city centre before convening on Centenary Square about 3pm.
I was hanging around Centenary Square between about 11.20 and 12.30 (mostly) and was able to get film footage of many of the different groups and their causes. I went to Victoria Square to film there. Just before 1pm, Jacob Rees-Mogg walked right next to the protest where he predictably got heckled. I followed the hecklers round from Victoria Square to Centenary Square and the entrance to the Tory Party Conference. Lots of lovely messages got yelled at Rees-Mogg as you can see from these clips (he is visible in the second video, but not the first).
By the time I got back to Victoria Square some of the speeches had started. I didn’t bother filming all of these. It was a similar lineup to the Enough is Enough protest of activist trade union types. Instead I was able to get some footage of RMT boss Mick Lynch liaising with his supporters:
I also have lots of footage of the crowd at various different points, there are some bits and pieces of the speeches on them. I also have some footage of Mick Lynch speaking to the crowd, as he was the most high-profile person in attendance.
Then there was the march, which went round the city centre and then looped back to Centenary Square.
It was the biggest protest in Birmingham I had seen in a while. For further footage of the events see my youtube/odysee/rumble/bitchute channels.
I attended the rally organised by Enough is Enough outside New Street Station in Birmingham.
I was there early in order to leaflet attendees about Julian Assange, and in particular the event in London on the 8th October. Every obscure leftist political party was there handing out literature and selling their papers. The RMT and the other rail unions were there for a picket line alongside the protest.
The turnout was pretty decent to be fair.
The demands of the Enough is Enough movement can be seen here. In summary, it’s standard soft-left fare: higher wages and lowering energy bills, as well as supporting the current rail and postal strikes. It was mostly a mix of fringe leftist groups, striking workers, millennial types with rainbow badges, the usual sort of people who turn up to these kinds of events. As far as I know, there was no presence from Labour Party MPs or councilors.
The speeches were the usual thing you get at these kinds of events. Several union workers stood up and spoke about the strikes, such as the rail strikes and the postal office strikes. A couple of female activists spoke on the issues of foodbanks and rented housing, respectively.
With the speeches and placards at these kinds of events, they are always framed in a particular way that I think is misleading. In other words, they talk about ‘the Tory government’. Now, as is pretty obvious from this website, I hate the current incumbents in Westminster. But the subtext here is that if we had a Labour government – things would be different. No, they would not. Look at Keir Starmer, for god’s sake. The man openly declares that he is ‘Zionist without qualification’ and his Crown Prosecution Service told the Swedish government not to drop the fraudulent ‘rape’ investigation into Julian Assange. If you think he is going to do a damn thing for you, you are naive beyond belief. He might be a bit less brazen than Liz Truss but that is about it.
Furthermore, the word ‘lockdown’ was not mentioned by any of the speakers. Lockdown is obviously a massive cause of the current economic crisis, but the unions were happy to support it as it meant they got furlough money (let’s just be honest here). If you know anything about how economies work, you will know that you can’t disrupt local, national and international supply chains via lockdowns for months on end and have no economic consequences from that. Instead, the left cheered lockdowns and in fact, demanded harder lockdowns, and those of us who pointed out that lockdowns would crash the economy were mocked as ‘valuing the economy over human life’.
I don’t want ordinary people to have to suffer economic hardship, but I also feel like the kind of speeches on display narrow the focus in a way that is unhelpful. One thing that was not mentioned, for example, is the push towards Central Digital Bank Currencies on the part of a multitude of states. Governments around the world are looking to abolish cash as a means to increase control. Why not bring this up? After all, this would hurt vulnerable people the most, such as people who are homeless. The answer is because the debate is corralled into a limited framework in which broader causative factors are not considered, instead being reduced down into the personal evils of ‘the Tory government’.
Or what about the fact that a year or so ago, care home workers were fired if they refused to take an extremely dangerous experimental injection proven to cause strokes, myocarditis and sudden death? Why not bring that up as an example of a monstrous policy pursued by these psychopathic elites? Well, that would contradict the fact that the left has done nothing but push the Covid scam for two years and to be honest, I think a lot of them would rather quietly forget about it. Basically no one was wearing a mask or bothering with any ‘social distancing’ at the protest, so they are clearly not worried about the ‘threat of Covid’ they told us we were monsters for ignoring for two years. In my view the left’s compliance with this scam cannot be forgotten so quickly and so easily. I personally will never forget how us ‘granny killers’, ‘conspiracy theorists’ and ‘anti-vaxxers’ were treated.
I would almost always rather that people protest than don’t protest, but the limitations of these kind of events are abundantly clear unfortunately. The left will not get anywhere until it admits its mistakes and that is something that is very unlikely to happen, as it would require an honesty that does not exist within the milieu, whether from sinister motives (such as sheepdogging) or simply ignorance or ideological blindness.
The British government, while currently appearing less authoritarian than some other Western governments due to the removal of many ‘Covid restrictions’, is seeking other ways to create a punishing authoritarian regime. Some of these I have already discussed, such as the Police Bill and the Nationality Bill, and others I have not, such as the Online Harms Bill (which seeks to ban ‘Covid misinformation’). One of the most important authoritarian moves is the reform of the Human Rights Act which has now been put out to consultation by the government. This article will look at the consultation and what is in it.
The Consultation Document
The Government has provided a document to read alongside the consultation. This document is extremely long and goes in to a lot of random detail. My guess is that the idea is to make the entire thing as intimidating as possible, so that people do not bother to respond. The questions (also listed on the page) on are also very technical and legalistic and so hard to understand. I’ve got to admit that I am not the best with legal jargon myself.
This one from Amnesty International. To make clear I don’t find them a trustworthy organisation due to their promotion of Western imperialism (including promotion of the incubator babies lie and the Douma false flag narrative).
This one from Save Our Rights, one of the organisations that has been active in opposing Covid totalitarianism.
Here are the questions copied and pasted from the UK consultation document. You’ll see what I mean about obtuse when you have a look:
Question 1: We believe that the domestic courts should be able to draw on a wide range of law when reaching decisions on human rights issues. We would welcome your thoughts on the illustrative draft clauses found after paragraph 4 of Appendix 2, as a means of achieving this.
Question 2: The Bill of Rights will make clear that the UK Supreme Court is the ultimate judicial arbiter of our laws in the implementation of human rights. How can the Bill of Rights best achieve this with greater certainty and authority than the current position?
Question 3: Should the qualified right to jury trial be recognised in the Bill of Rights? Please provide reasons.
Question 4: How could the current position under section 12 of the Human Rights Act be amended to limit interference with the press and other publishers through injunctions or other relief?
Question 5: The government is considering how it might confine the scope for interference with Article 10 to limited and exceptional circumstances, taking into account the considerations above. To this end, how could clearer guidance be given to the courts about the utmost importance attached to Article 10? What guidance could we derive from other international models for protecting freedom of speech?
Question 6: What further steps could be taken in the Bill of Rights to provide stronger protection for journalists’ sources?
Question 7: Are there any other steps that the Bill of Rights could take to strengthen the protection for freedom of expression?
Question 8: Do you consider that a condition that individuals must have suffered a ‘significant disadvantage’ to bring a claim under the Bill of Rights, as part of a permission stage for such claims, would be an effective way of making sure that courts focus on genuine human rights matters? Please provide reasons.
Question 9: Should the permission stage include an ‘overriding public importance’ second limb for exceptional cases that fail to meet the ‘significant disadvantage’ threshold, but where there is a highly compelling reason for the case to be heard nonetheless? Please provide reasons.
Question 10: How else could the government best ensure that the courts can focus on genuine human rights abuses?
Question 11: How can the Bill of Rights address the imposition and expansion of positive obligations to prevent public service priorities from being impacted by costly human rights litigation? Please provide reasons.
Question 12: We would welcome your views on the options for section 3: Option 1: Repeal section 3 and do not replace it; Option 2: Repeal section 3 and replace it with a provision that where there is ambiguity, legislation should be construed compatibly with the rights in the Bill of Rights, but only where such interpretation can be done in a manner that is consistent with the wording and overriding purpose of the legislation. We would welcome comments on the above options, and the illustrative clauses in Appendix 2.
Question 13: How could Parliament’s role in engaging with, and scrutinising, section 3 judgments be enhanced?
Question 14: Should a new database be created to record all judgments that rely on section 3 in interpreting legislation?
Question 15: Should the courts be able to make a declaration of incompatibility for all secondary legislation, as they can currently do for Acts of Parliament?
Question 16: Should the proposals for suspended and prospective quashing orders put forward in the Judicial Review and Courts Bill be extended to all proceedings under the Bill of Rights where secondary legislation is found to be incompatible with the Convention rights? Please provide reasons.
Question 17: Should the Bill of Rights contain a remedial order power? In particular, should it be: a. similar to that contained in section 10 of the Human Rights Act; b. similar to that in the Human Rights Act, but not able to be used to amend the Bill of Rights itself; c. limited only to remedial orders made under the ‘urgent’ procedure; or d. abolished altogether? Please provide reasons.
Question 18: We would welcome your views on how you consider section 19 is operating in practice, and whether there is a case for change.
Question 19: How can the Bill of Rights best reflect the different interests, histories and legal traditions of all parts of the UK, while retaining the key principles that underlie a Bill of Rights for the whole UK?
Question 20: Should the existing definition of public authorities be maintained, or can more certainty be provided as to which bodies or functions are covered? Please provide reasons.
Question 21: The government would like to give public authorities greater confidence to perform their functions within the bounds of human rights law. Which of the following replacement options for section 6(2) would you prefer? Please explain your reasons. Option 1: Provide that wherever public authorities are clearly giving effect to primary legislation, then they are not acting unlawfully; or Option 2: Retain the current exception, but in a way which mirrors the changes to how legislation can be interpreted discussed above for section 3.
Question 22: Given the above, we would welcome your views on the most appropriate approach for addressing the issue of extraterritorial jurisdiction, including the tension between the law of armed conflict and the Convention in relation to extraterritorial armed conflict.
Question 23: To what extent has the application of the principle of ‘proportionality’ given rise to problems, in practice, under the Human Rights Act? We wish to provide more guidance to the courts on how to balance qualified and limited rights. Which of the below options do you believe is the best way to achieve this? Please provide reasons. Option 1: Clarify that when the courts are deciding whether an interference with a qualified right is ‘necessary’ in a ‘democratic society’, legislation enacted by Parliament should be given great weight, in determining what is deemed to be ‘necessary’. Option 2: Require the courts to give great weight to the expressed view of Parliament, when assessing the public interest, for the purposes of determining the compatibility of legislation, or actions by public authorities in discharging their statutory or other duties, with any right. We would welcome your views on the above options, and the draft clauses after paragraph 10 of Appendix 2.
Question 24: How can we make sure deportations that are in the public interest are not frustrated by human rights claims? Which of the options, below, do you believe would be the best way to achieve this objective? Please provide reasons. Option 1: Provide that certain rights in the Bill of Rights cannot prevent the deportation of a certain category of individual, for example, based on a certain threshold such as length of imprisonment; Option 2: Provide that certain rights can only prevent deportation where provided for in a legislative scheme expressly designed to balance the strong public interest in deportation against such rights; and/or Option 3: provide that a deportation decision cannot be overturned, unless it is obviously flawed, preventing the courts from substituting their view for that of the Secretary of State.
Question 25: While respecting our international obligations, how could we more effectively address, at both the domestic and international levels, the impediments arising from the Convention and the Human Rights Act to tackling the challenges posed by illegal and irregular migration?
Question 26: We think the Bill of Rights could set out a number of factors in considering when damages are awarded and how much. These include: a. the impact on the provision of public services; b. the extent to which the statutory obligation had been discharged; c. the extent of the breach; and d. where the public authority was trying to give effect to the express provisions, or clear purpose, of legislation. Which of the above considerations do you think should be included? Please provide reasons.
Question 27: We believe that the Bill of Rights should include some mention of responsibilities and/or the conduct of claimants, and that the remedies system could be used in this respect. Which of the following options could best achieve this? Please provide reasons. Option 1: Provide that damages may be reduced or removed on account of the applicant’s conduct specifically confined to the circumstances of the claim; or Option 2: Provide that damages may be reduced in part or in full on account of the applicant’s wider conduct, and whether there should be any limits, temporal or otherwise, as to the conduct to be considered.
Question 28: We would welcome comments on the options, above, for responding to adverse Strasbourg judgments, in light of the illustrative draft clause at paragraph 11 of Appendix 2.
Question 29: We would like your views and any evidence or data you might hold on any potential impacts that could arise as a result of the proposed Bill of Rights. In particular: a. What do you consider to be the likely costs and benefits of the proposed Bill of Rights? Please give reasons and supply evidence as appropriate. b. What do you consider to be the equalities impacts on individuals with particular protected characteristics of each of the proposed options for reform? Please give reasons and supply evidence as appropriate. c. How might any negative impacts be mitigated? Please give reasons and supply evidence as appropriate.
The consultation allows you to only answer some of these questions and ignore others. To he honest I am going to ignore most of them and only focus on a few. I used the email method because I didn’t want to make arguments on the uber technical questions.
Questions 4/5/6/7: Free Expression
I looked at two bits that they mentioned in their consultation:
The government is committed to ensuring that the biggest social media companies protect users from abuse and harm, and in doing so ensuring that everyone can enjoy their right to freedom of expression free from the fear of abuse.
The government wishes to explore ways of strengthening the protection for freedom of expression in the Human Rights Act, mindful as always of the government’s primary duty to protect national security and keep its citizens safe.
Basically, ‘harm’ and ‘abuse’ can mean anything and ‘national security’ can also mean anything.
Question 8/9: Preliminary stages
These will be abused by the government to prevent cases they don’t like coming to court.
The examples that they gave on the consultation are very small uses of public money
Problematic to introduce this over a few frivolous cases, even if those cases lead to slight waste of public funds.
Question 22: Extraterritoriality
Concerns that they government will try to change this to prevent their soldiers being prosecuted for war crimes
Questions 26/27: Compensation
Deflects attention from the abuse and towards the individual making the claim
Divides the population into ‘good’ citizens worthy of rights and ‘bad’ citizens who are unworthy
Behaviour could mean anything such as attending a protest the government doesn’t like
May be used to discriminate against certain races, religions, etc. or against people who don’t agree with a state narrative e.g. the unvaxxed
General comments on the concept of a ‘rights culture’ and the public interest
See Naked Emperor’s post above on this one. Basically they are trying to put more emphasis on obligations to society. In other words another possible means to attempt forced injections in the ‘public interest’.
This was a protest organised by the usual suspects on the left, who to be honest I find generally tiresome at this point. This included the unions – Unite and the National Education Union – and the People’s Assembly. In other words, the lockdown fanatics that advocated for the situation we now find ourselves in regarding the economy – and those who mocked people like me for pointing out the devastation that lockdown would inflict on working people.
People’s Assembly even went so far as to refuse to protest alongside ‘anti-vaxxers’ against the draconian Policing Bill:
I primarily went to the protest in order to provide coverage of the event, rather than to take part. I have lost faith in the traditional and modern left to do anything useful due to their Corona fanaticism, advocacy for working class destroying lockdowns, harmful and useless (in terms of stopping viruses) face masks, and mocking and smearing anyone who even questions a dodgy Big Pharma product as an ‘anti-vaxxer’.
The framing that was present during the speeches is exactly what you would expect regarding Corona, complaining about the old staples such as ‘useless PPE’, ‘dodgy contracts’ etc., which does not get to the heart of the matter. The oblique framing of the ‘the Tories making us pay for the pandemic’ was present, but no mention of the horrific consequences of locking down and how it has harmed working class people. (The only speaker to use the word ‘lockdown’ was Nila from Stop the War coalition, from what I heard, which was not all of it due to wind noise).
Then we get the typical complaining about left wing bugbears such as Tommy Robinson (I believe he is only highlighting grooming gang victims to push a particular narrative, but the left has failed on this issue, see below), ‘The Tory government’ (as if Labour wouldn’t do the same thing), Brexit (as if this topic has any relevance to anything at this point and I say this as a Brexit/Lexit voter), etc. Though one of the speakers did call out Prince Andrew for being a pedophile and the royal family for protecting him, so maybe common sense hasn’t completely left the building.
I don’t want working class people to have to pay more money for energy bills etc., especially since they were the primary victims of lockdowns. I think that is fairly obvious. The question is how we tackle the problem. In general, even though I disagree with capitalist economics I have become a lot more sceptical of calling on the (capitalist) state to do anything about anything, since they will just use it to push more pain onto working people (a good example is the environment: while it’s clear that many things humans are doing are negatively affecting the environment, any state action is likely to be more authoritarian nonsense that will punish the working class like carbon based digital IDs). Unlike libertarians I believe that this authoritarianism is inherently interlinked with the capitalist system.
Alternative systems within the current one such as opting out as much as possible and doing other things within the freedom based community are a good idea. However, they are difficult to implement in practice given that people still have to survive within the current system (e.g. people have to go to work full time, leaving limited time and energy for alternatives). Such suggestions can come across as a bit naïve in some cases though I advocate them where realistically possible.
I have uploaded some of the footage onto my Bitchute channel of the speeches that were audible and not ruined by wind noise.
RE Tommy Robinson: Robinson wants to promote the idea that foreign or Muslim men are inherently a threat to women and girls, which is false (even though I do believe Islamic ideology to be misogynistic, it does not follow that all men from these backgrounds will rape children). However the left has ignored the grooming gang victims because they were victims of Asian men and that does not fit their own narrative of foreign/Muslim men not being a threat to women and girls. In reality a minority of men of all races are a violent threat to women and girls (which is one reason why we have separate spaces for women and men). Robinson ignores victims of white men, whereas the misogyny of the current left causes them to brush over the problem. The left also allows for more abuse of women and girls to take place by pushing transgender ideology, which states that any man is a woman if he declares himself to be so (including violent males). The women from Stand up to Racism claimed that their slogan involved justice for the victims, I wasn’t there so I can’t say, but there is no evidence of that in the signage.
A quick post on this protest with uploaded footage.
The Nationalities and Borders Bill is a new piece of legislation relating to issues such as citizenship and asylum put forward by the Tory government. As such, it has enraged the Modern (aka woke) Left due to their heavy emphasis on immigration.
This bill is of concern due to its authoritarian aspects – alongside other bills and acts opposed by the Modern Left – such as the Police Bill – and ones the Modern Left refuse to oppose – such as the Coronavirus Act. The key authoritarian aspect of concern is that the bill makes it possible for the government to strip people from immigrant backgrounds of citizenship without notification. The number of people calculated to be possibly affected is 6 million including dual nationals and people born in foreign countries.
Of course, while the government claims this will only be used against criminals, we cannot trust the government not to abuse these powers and go after activists or anyone they don’t like in general.
Unfortunately, as is in line with the left today, many protesters were clearly in alignment with the Official Covid Narrative.
Here is the protest crowd:
Some of the speakers are up on my Bitchute channel. Unfortunately the sound was not the best due to an arcade game being run very close to the protest site, which is the noise that you can hear in the background in some of the clips.
A quick post about this protest which I attended at short notice. This protest took place because the government are continuing to push the draconian Police, Crime, Courts and Sentencing Bill which will severely restrict the right to protest. This goes along with all the other authoritarian police state things that they are pushing or have pushed, such as the Coronavirus Act, mandatory masks, vaccine passports and the persecution of Julian Assange.
I have expressed some reservations about the Kill the Bill movement before, primarily the fact that they ignore the Official Covid Narrative as a justification for tyranny.
Presumably this was because some groups like Stand Up X and Save Our Rights, who are anti-lockdown, were advertising the event and encouraging people to turn up. Of course, this is beyond pathetic – looking a gift horse of additional support in the mouth. Despite the fact that the left has mocked and smeared people supportive of Stand Up X and Save Our Rights for months, they backed the protest because stopping the bill was more important than disagreement. Obviously this ‘People’s Assembly’ lot don’t represent the whole left but there are a significant proportion who like to mock people who don’t follow every restriction out of Boris Johnson’s mouth and don’t trust Big Pharma.
Anyway, I went to this protest despite reservations because this bill is terrible. Apart from being a lot darker (it was at 5pm) and a lot colder, not a lot has changed in terms of the kinds of things they are talking about (and still no acknowledgement of the evils of the Coronavirus Act or vaccine passports). The usual leftist groups were around including Stop the War coalition, the Workers Party of Britain and trade union groups. The speeches were the usual kind of left leaning stuff that you get at these kind of events with the themes of the ‘climate emergency’, imperialism, migrants etc. (The speaker from Stop the War even had a go at the Workers’ Party of Britain for being too anti-migration, so we couldn’t get through the event without a left wing spat.)
There was also a lot of Extinction Rebellion people around as well, giving out badges and leaflets, and they also brought the drums along. There was a period of 10-15 minutes where they just did some drumming. (I’m a bit cynical about the ‘climate emergency’ narrative at this point given that it seems to be the next narrative after Covid to be used to drive in the authoritarian police state. There was quite a lot of plugging of this narrative at this event with another protest on another date being mentioned for climate change.)
After a few more speakers there was a bit of chanting that was a bit half-assed. Though for a Wednesday 5 o’clock protest, the turnout was decent. Maybe 100-150 or so people (difficult to see in the dark).
On the 1st June 2021, Birmingham (UK) introduced a ‘Clean Air Zone’. The plan is to charge vehicles that emit too many greenhouse gases a fee for every day that they enter the city centre. The supposed motivation for this is to lower emissions and improve air quality, thus improving the quality of life of people who live in Birmingham. As with any capitalist state initiative, however, we have to look beneath the surface, and in this case there is a link to the Smart City agenda.
Birmingham Clean Air Zone
The Birmingham Clean Air Zone – which came into force on the 1st June – will charge any non-compliant household vehicle that enters into the zone or drives within the zone £8 per day. Non-compliant vehicles are those that are (considered to be) non-fuel efficient and so emit too much carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. There are various exemptions to these rules, but for our purposes they are not important.
The main aspect which I will focus upon in this article is the mechanism by which the Clean Air Zone will be enforced. According to the BrumBreathes website, the official website for the changes:
Vehicles that do not meet the emission standards for the zone will be detected by an ANPR camera (automatic number plate recognition).
Number plates that are non-compliant with the low emissions zone will be flagged for a fine.
ANPR technology converts an image of a number plate into machine-encoded text, this is called optical character recognition.
The technology can be used across CCTV, traffic enforcement cameras and ANPR-specific cameras. Infrared illumination can help cameras to capture a clearer image.
ANPR cameras are used to monitor speeding vehicles and handing out fines based on that basis. The police also use them to monitor stolen vehicles.
A Step Towards Smart Cities
Smart Cities – cities with endless sensors and monitoring managed by AI – are a dream of the global elite. Institutions such as the World Economic Forum are promoting the smart city concept through the creation of a ‘Pioneer Cities’ program. While smart cities are promoted as the solution to humanity’s problems, in reality, they will lead to the end of privacy – as every single device, even a kettle, will be hooked up to the ‘Internet of Things’ for monitoring. One of the main narratives being used to drive the smart city is the Official Covid Narrative – with smart cities being sold as ‘pandemic management’.
However, another idea being used to sell smart cities is the ‘green’ agenda. A significant proportion of Western populations are concerned about genuine environmental issues such as pollution and plastic waste, and this can be leveraged by Smart City promoters to push their agenda. For example, this article from 2018 talks about how the ‘Internet of Things’ is the best way to improve the environment by making everything more efficient. In reality, smart cities would devastate the environment due to the large amount of rare earth metals required for chipping everything and the creation of 5G networks, but that aspect is ignored by smart city promoters.
It is clear that the Birmingham Clean Air Zone is being used in such a manner, due to the fact that its surveillance policies will automatically slap online payable fines on non-compliant cars through ANPR processes. These cameras will be able to collect a large amount of data on drivers which allows for a higher level of privacy violation, a key concept of the Smart City.
On an even more sinister level, the idea of the Clean Air Zone may begin to normalise the exclusion of individuals from certain areas for not meeting certain criteria. This is being pushed extremely hard in Britain at the moment through the attempted normalisation of vaccine passports – preventing people from going to social events unless they have had the Covid-19 vaccine. The Official Covid Narrative and the ‘green’ agenda may merge with the concept of the ‘climate lockdown’ – an idea already being promoted and normalised in the mainstream media.
An initially innocuous idea – that of reducing pollution in the Birmingham City Centre – is actually tied into deeper agendas for the introduction of ‘smart cities’ and ramping up mass surveillance under the guise of ‘protecting the planet’.
It could be just me, but it seems as if there are a huge number of protests going on, more than ‘normal’. I don’t mean this from the point of view of one ideology or another. I just mean people protesting about things in general. It could be me simply being more aware of protests, but at the moment we have multiple Free Palestine events, Kill the Bill, Anti-Lockdown events, that have all drawn significant numbers of people.
The two protests that took place in Victoria Square were by BrumLAG (Birmingham Leaseholders Action Group) and a group seeking to stop the deportation of Osime Brown to Jamaica.
The BrumLAG protest took place near the statue of Queen Victoria, off to the side of the square. It was pretty well attended, at least a few hundred were there.
The protest for Osime Brown was around 30-odd people and took place in the section of Victoria Square under the building.
The BrumLAG event was about the issue of cladding in homes. In 2017, Grenfell Tower, a tower block in London, set on fire. The fire was able to spread rapidly because of the type of cladding used in the building. 72 people were killed as a result of the fire.
Safety concerns regarding the risk of fire had been raised before the fire took place.
Many other buildings contain the same or similar unsafe cladding. This has caused serious worries to those living in such buildings due to the risk of a fire.
The BrumLAG protest was focused upon the issue of who pays for the replacement of the cladding. Leaseholders have been expected to pay and their properties have no value. BrumLAG have been making the case that the developers that should be paying for the changes to make the buildings safe.
I did listen to some of the things that the speakers were saying. Unfortunately, they had a fairly low quality sound system. The recordings I made of the couple of speeches I managed to film on my tablet came out pretty garbled.
The Osime Brown event, on the other hand, had a much better sound system. The event was organised by some of the people involved in Kill the Bill and there were several of the same faces there as the event on May 1st.
I am going to be honest and say that I do not know a lot about this case. I will post the leaflet handed out by the organisers below so that you can read what they have to say:
Some of the speakers at this event were also at the Kill the Bill event. The woman with the bright coloured hair was speaking at Kill the Bill. I’m pretty sure the man with the yellow jacket introducing the speakers spoke there as well, or was involved in some way. Joan, Osime’s mother, also spoke at Kill the Bill and this is the first that I heard about this case.
I have embedded the videos below.
Here’s some Birmingham Leaseholders Action Group footage:
I am also trying to offer a Bitchute alternative for my footage, but am having some technical problems uploading. [EDIT: This is now resolved and all the above footage is available on Bitchute}.
I suppose that I had better comment on what went on in the UK on Thursday, an election in which we had the grand choice between the pro-lockdown Conservative Party and the pro-lockdown Labour Party. And if you live in Scotland, you can toss the pro-lockdown Scottish National Party into the mix as well.
The Media Blather
The media was quite excited about the fact that the Conservatives won Hartlepool from Labour in a by-election. Hartlepool is a traditionally Labour constituency, part of the so-called ‘Red Wall’ that went partially Conservative in 2019 due to Jeremy Corbyn’s failure to stand up to the centrists sabotaging his campaign and endorsing a second Brexit referendum.
Of course, many liberals in the media claimed that if Labour got rid of the ‘loony left’ Jeremy Corbyn and replaced him with the ‘moderate and forensic’ Keir Starmer they would be much more likely to get elected. Now of course it’s good to poke fun at the media for promoting this nonsense. But really, what difference would it have made if Labour would have won this seat? None as far as I can tell – we would have a pro-lockdown Labour politician instead of a pro-lockdown Tory politician.
How Many People Voted for House Arrest?
I think what is significant about these elections is the amount of people who voted for pro-lockdown candidates, i.e. people that were willing to put their vote towards job destroying, working class impoverishing lockdowns. The answer seems to be: quite a lot.
I will focus this analysis on a couple of mayoral elections, simply for reasons of space and patience.
Let’s start with the London Mayoral election. The standard 4 pro-lockdown options were available: Labour (the utterly dire Sadiq Khan), Conservative (Shaun Bailey), Liberal Democrat (Luisa Porritt) and Green (the uber woke Sian Berry). However, there were several other candidates: The anti-lockdown, anti-woke actor Laurence Fox; the independent media personality Brian Rose (who I have to say I am not familiar with, though I have heard of London Real and am aware they oppose the ‘pandemic’ narrative); the anti-lockdown, climate change critic and vaccine sceptic Piers Corbyn; and the anti-lockdown, socially conservative David Kurten. In terms of other options, there was also a Rejoin EU party candidate (yawn), a Women’s Equality Party candidate, and some random joke candidates. And some others.
Sadiq Khan was re-elected as London mayor, but that’s not really my main concern here. I am going to add up the vote for our four main pro-lockdown candidates. 1,013,721 for Khan (seriously?), 893,051 for Bailey, 197,976 for Berry, and 111,716 for Porritt. This puts the pro-lockdown vote at 2,216,464. The anti-lockdown candidates (the four mentioned above), when totalled, add up to 110,374. I do find this to be utterly depressing, especially as mayoral elections have first and second choices so you can still vote against Lab/Con for your second choice and pick an anti-medical tyranny candidate for your first choice. However turnout was only 42.1%, so nearly 60% did not vote at all.
I will look at one more mayoral election, the West Midlands election. In this election, there were 5 candidates, the four standard pro-lockdown party candidates and a Reform UK candidate who is anti-lockdown. The total for the four pro-lockdown parties was 600,722. Pete Durnell, the Reform UK candidate, scored 13,568 votes. Turnout was even lower in this election at 31.2%.
These elections show that there are a heck of a lot of people who are willing to vote for the destruction of their freedom, the destruction of their mental wellbeing, and the destruction of their children’s education by supporting pro-lockdown candidates (yes I am aware they may not have voted for the candidate on the grounds of their support for lockdowns, but there are some things that you just don’t endorse at the ballot box). I am hoping that the lockdown sceptics are more prominent among the non voters, because given the London protests, there has to be quite a lot of us.
In a previous article about Kill the Bill, I expressed my reservations about this movement. The article, hosted on OffGuardian, agreed that the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill is an assault on human rights and the right to protest. My disagreements with the Kill the Bill movement focused upon its failure to challenge the Official Covid Narrative – and indeed, their reinforcement of that narrative via compliance with masks and speeches supporting that narrative.
For this reason, I believe that the anti-lockdown/vaccine passport movement is the most important movement to support – along with the Free Julian Assange movement – in order to truly protect our freedoms. (In my own activism I largely focus on Assange).
I decided to attend this event in order to cover it for this website.
I was pleased to see that someone had taped up a ‘Don’t Extradite Assange’ sign among the various other taped up signs (mainly ‘Stop the War’ Coalition signs).
There were not many there until about 2:10. It was tipping it down between about 1:00 and 2:00, meaning that the only people in Victoria Square were huddled at the back:
The speeches started about 2:15 and lasted until about 3:15. The rain stopped, fortunately.
The crowd size was not that large. I would guess a bit smaller than the two anti-lockdown events I have attended at Victoria Square. Guessing how large a crowd is is notoriously difficult and annoying. I would give a ballpark of 500.
Most of the speeches were pretty short, a few minutes each.
I did see aspects of the same hypocrisies in terms of Covid-19 as I highlighted in my OffGuardian article, though these were less in-your-face than at the London event. Most though not all of the attendees were complying with wearing a mask. The last speaker was the main person to address Covid directly, saying that the Tories want to ‘make us pay for the Covid crisis’. The correct thing to do, of course, is to oppose the manufacturing of the ‘Covid crisis’, rather than support that narrative. After complaining that there is no opposition in Parliament, the speaker then went on to state he was going to quote Lenin. Say what you want about Lenin, but I don’t think he would have advocated ‘Pandemic’ capitalist narratives.
The first speaker mentioned the repression at the Sarah Everard vigil as the spark for these protests. The fact that the Left reacted to this but ignored the police harassment of Piers Corbyn or even harassment of Assange supporters highlights the hypocrisy on this point. There has been no shortage of police overreach to trigger action, but the ‘nutter’ Corbyn is not deemed worth defending by the left even when he is on the receiving end of unwarranted repression. The left barely defends Assange (the likes of the Socialist Workers’ Party shack up at everything but I didn’t see many people affiliated with these socialist groups outside the Old Bailey in September/October 2020 on the four days I was able to attend the protests).
A couple of side points. Another speaker, talking about Traveller communities, compared Priti Patel to Hitler. The quote was (paraphrasing) ‘Hitler did not succeed in destroying the Romany peoples, don’t let Priti Patel succeed’ or something similar, that was the implication. I can only imagine how quickly I would get cancelled if I used a Hitler analogy in relation to Covid Tyranny. Another person talked about free speech on campuses and honest discussions of colonialism. (I agree with protecting free speech and being able to speak the truth about the British Empire, but given that this is a woke milieu, I have to wonder their view on Maya Forstater).
I did not see any examples of repression from the police though I left at 3:15 and did not go on the march afterwards.
I would rather people protest this bill than not protest it. I do not want this bill to pass because of its restrictions on protests – it says that protests can be shut down for noise reasons, which in reality means any protests that the state does not like will be called ‘too noisy’ and shut down.
But I would even more rather the left get off its arse and realise that the Official Covid Narrative has to be opposed along with the Coronavirus Act 2020. We all need to unite to oppose tyranny, and that is going to involve left wing activists uniting with the anti-lockdown movement. If this does not happen, the left will become even more irrelevant in the face of more and more ordinary people getting utterly fed up of this ‘Covid’ nonsense. Despite media manipulation, this is evident in the hundreds of thousands of attendees at the large London events against lockdowns and vaccine passports. Once you add in people who sympathise with the protests you are looking at millions of people and that number will only likely get larger as the government pushes more and more authoritarian policies.
We are in a race against time to stop the vaccine passport. If the vaccine passport is introduced, even if in a limited capacity, freedom will most likely come to an end. As Neil Clark outlines:
But if vaccine passports are introduced, even for the most limited circumstances, we can be sure of two things. The scheme won’t be ‘limited’ but will be expanded over time into a full-scale digitalised Chinese-style social credit restricted access system, AND it won’t be ‘temporary’.
Without linking up in order to fight against all forms of capitalist state tyranny I can only feel that this movement will be a failure. It’s high time the majority of the left admitted they got it wrong on Covid 19, and work to actually correct their mistake by opposing lockdowns, mandatory masks, and vaccine passports. I am forced to stick with the original conclusion of my OffGuardian piece:
Focusing entirely on this one bill is a distraction that precludes a true recognition of the biosecurity state being foisted on us through lockdowns, mandatory masks, social distancing and vaccine passports.