Leaderboard

As soon as the government message is globalist and not a party political divergence, the BBC are eagerly complicit. Climate change being due to man-made CO2 for instance, all the lunacy of Net Zero, and no debate was allowed on anything that questioned the government narrative on Covid, lockdowns or vaccines. Furthermore the BBC actively got Facebook to close down forums for the vaccine injured as "disinformation". Of which my mother nearly died.

Yep, that was a bit pathetic wasn't it. I'd have made a point of stopping, not the least because I can't stand being expected to act in groupthink ways. Even if I disagreed with all that he said, I'd still have stopped. On a personal level, even though I do think his holocaust remarks were stupid, I stand and applaud his personal courage and commitment in the face of ridicule.

Considering the average age of death from Covid is and always was 82, and the victims almost invariably had various co-morbidities such as obesity, the authorities initial idea of vaccinating the at risk elderly seemed reasonable. The rolling it out to other age groups is incomprehensible though, based on spurious transmission/infection theories for which there has never been any evidence. Pfizer for one never claimed their vaccine had any effect on either transmission or infection, it just mitigated the symptoms. But you wouldn't go and see your granny if you had flu-like symptoms anyway. It's worth seeing Andrew Bridgen (available on his YT channel) empty the Commons last Friday before making some damning observations from the government's own data about the current risk/benefit of continuing the booster programme. An eye opener, but no one debates or debunks what he is saying, which tells the story really.

The irony being that less than 50 years ago, the BBC were discussing whether a new ice age was on the way. I hope they will not be allowed to forget that, along with the long term succour they gave to sex abusers like Jimmy Savile and Rolf Harris, then sacking John Lydon (Johnny Rotten as his punk name went) for exposing Savile - meaning (shock horror), that the BBC do get it badly wrong, and most certainly can't be relied upon as a font of all knowledge and information. With regard to climate change "deniers" or "denialists", whatever, I think the term is open to abuse, since an increase in global temperature is a hard fact. The point at discussion is precisely why, and here the narrative is entirely one way, with all other possibilities deliberately squeezed out of the conversation. Commentators with alternative theories being disallowed any platform. That's not just the BBC, it's virtually everywhere. Although GB News did have a fascinating hour long debate between two opposing sides on the matter, last Summer. That was so refreshing. The vaccine issue is another matter entirely. I agree that at the start of the pandemic, a vaccine was essential, and that the benefits then outweighed the risks. Moreover, given the sheer mass scale of vaccinations, and the speed of development, inevitably there would be many people who were damaged and killed by it. Although the vast majority (probably > 99%), suffered no serious and/or long term side effects. But again, the term "anti vaxxer" is being badly abused and does not reflect reality, since those who are now questioning the efficacy of the vaccine, are not against ALL vaccines. Just the covid one. Personally I can't see the point in suppressing debate on the issue, especially now that covid has turned largely from tiger to pussycat. Just let people have their say. OFCOM/you tube don't need to exclude programmes discussing the vaccine. As far as "net zero", I believe the UK are virtually the only place on Earth pursuing it with such messianic zeal and imposing absurdly tight arbitrary deadlines on its introduction. If the advocates of climate change being 100% due to Co2 emissions, are so convinced of the scientific accuracy of their arguments, why are they seemingly so worried about other elements to the debate being allowed into the official narrative? I don't get it.

Agreed on Larson comments at beginning of this thread in 2018 - every bathroom should have a Larson book somewhere in it. Worth looking at afresh. Still wonderful. Here is a pic my mate in Nashville sent me:

Yet it’s used by the Govt as a propoganda arm, therefor not impartial

The top one is definitely a copy . The sovereign may be an ex mount with the silvery metal being left over solder , but as stated , they are commonly faked , so hard to tell from a pic.

And the second one also looks like a replica or copy: there appears to be some silvery metal showing through the "gold" where the coin is damaged above the queen's head. Copies of sovereigns are incredibly prevalent, sadly. If so, it would have basically no value at all. Sorry.

The first one is a pewter replica of an Elizabeth I threepence, worth around £1 unfortunately.

Can't beat Gary Larson. Best cartoonist ever.