Ian Fantom – Jan 31, 2022

The scrapping of most of the draconian Covid laws in England was necessary for the government to save face. It was entirely political and nothing to do with medicine or science. The protests against the Covid laws were already much bigger than any of the politicians and the mainstream media would admit to, and to the police, for some reason that they would not explain, suddenly stopped making their estimates of crowd sizes. Yet up to a million people were taking part in those protests on a weekly basis in London alone. At the heart of those protests are scientists, medical people and some lawyers. These are not political hot-heads, but professional people trying to maintain a professional attitude in their responsibilities to the public. The virologist who was interviewed by Joe Rogan, and subsequently subjected to a vicious cancel culture campaign against their main platform, Spotify, is not just an expert in the field; he is the world’s number one expert on mRNA technology, the tecnology used in most of the Covid vaccines. He invented the technique, and led the development team. That technology should not, he insisted, be used on humans. Yet that is exactly what they are doing.

The cancel culture mob have now grossly offended so many people that they are becoming a force that can rival the cancel culture force itself. Every platform, every venue, is primarily concerned with its own public reputation. So far, the cancel culture mob could destroy that reputation, just by using a small number of trigger words, that would cause a sort of Pavlovian conditioned response. Even a concert at the Royal Northern School of Music was cancelled on one occasion, merely because the cancel culture mob objected to the participation in the ensemble of a native Palestinian Jew, who eventually renounced Zionism and his own Jewishness. I could quote other examples. Probably many of the million demonstrators could quote their own examples, too. Imagine the government trying to enforce continuing Covid laws under such conditions. Everyone would have been outraged.

The waters have receded. This is a retrenchement. Yet Boris seems supremely confident, whilst most people outside government circles are calling for his resignation. “But who else is there?”, asked one person in the street on Channel 4 News the evening after the parliamentary row following the publication of a very much reduced Sue Gray report.

The published summary report says nothing of great importance that we didn’t already know. It was clearly not a redacted version of the full report, but a summary report written in lieu of the report she had reportedly delivered to Downing Street. One thing it did help along was the constant focusing of all discussion in parliament and the mass media on the personality of Boris Johnson himself, and whether he should resign. But a lot more people than the Prime Minister were said to have been involved. It seems to have been beyond the wit of any MP and of any political journalist in the mainstream media to figure out that no-one would have attended such a party if they had believed what they, collectively, had been telling the public to believe: that there was a mortal danger from a fast-spreading contagious disease if they didn’t follow the draconian Covid laws. These aren’t macho people who would sacrifice their own lives if it was for the common good; the people at the heart of government are generally speaking wimps, who are dead frightened of losing their positions on committees. None of them could possibly have believed this junk that they had been spewing out day after day for the past two years. That is why it is important to know precisely who was at those parties.

How many of the Cabinet were present? How many government advisors were present? Were Professor Chris Whitty, Sir Patrick Vallance, or Jonathan Van-Tam present at the party? It’s not just a case of whether they should resign or not – and I understand that Van-Tam is about to leave his role anyway – but it’s a question of whether they believed what they were telling us on a regular basis, and whether the Covid story retains any credibility. How many members of the SAGE advisory group, or any other advisory group, were present at any of these parties? How many civil servants were present. Does Sue Gray have something to cover up here? Was Sue Gray herself present? Without lists of all those present at each party, this issue cannot be resolved. If it is resolved, then there could appear an all-devouring black hole at the centre of government, swallowing up those who can no longer credibly claim that they themselves believe in the mortal danger they have been trying to save us ordinary folk from, by imposing such draconian laws.

From the media reports, one could easily believe that poor Sue Gray had submitted her report in full, and that Boris Johnson had redacted it. Yet reading that report would put anyone in a different mindset. It is a separate summary report issued by the Cabinet Office. Strangely, no author’s name is given. I had expected to find Sue Gray’s name, and indeed the report is written in the first person singular. That can only mean that Sue Gray is going along with the censorship. “In carrying out my investigation I have been supported by a small team of senior civil servants in the Cabinet Office, who have no connection with the events under examination and who are bound by the requirements of the Civil Service Code”, she wrote. How can none of them have any connection with the events?

‘Who is Sue Gray – and does she have the power to bring Boris Johnson down?’ asks Sky News in an ‘Explainer’ article. The article relates a story I had heard earlier. “David Laws, a Liberal Democrat minister in the 2010 coalition government, said Oliver Letwin once told him that Ms Gray was the brains behind the UK government operation. In his memoirs, Mr Laws quotes Mr Letwin as saying: ‘Our great United Kingdom is actually entirely run by a lady called Sue Gray, the head of ethics or something in the Cabinet Office’. Mr Letwin, David Cameron’s policy chief, added: ‘Unless she agrees, things just don’t happen. Cabinet reshuffles, departmental reorganisations, the whole lot – it’s all down to Sue Gray. Nothing moves in Whitehall unless Sue says so. She gets to censor our memoirs too!”, the article stated.

So did Sue Gray really have no connection with the events she was investigating?

She wrote in her summary report, “As a result of the Metropolitan Police’s investigations, and so as not to prejudice the police investigative process, they have told me that it would only be appropriate to make minimal reference to the gatherings on the dates they are investigating”. I have difficulty with that one, as do some legal minds, too. Since when have the police had the power to curtail investigations outside their own forces? Are the sub judice laws being extended to precede police investigations? Why did Sue Gray so easily submit to their puzzling request? This is reminiscent of a nursery song I used to hear time and time again from my todler son’s tape recorder, until the tape got stretched and distorted. It ran something like: “Mummy, please may I go for a swim? Yes, dear, as long as you don’t go near the water”. This is so true to life. In order to circumscribe the activities of any group that the Establishment wishes to suppress, it is normal to cut out the essential point of the existance of the group. I’ve met that one so much in the past.

So was Sue Gray threatened, explicitly or implicitly, or did she herself have something to hide? Was she complicit in the redactions? One clue may lie in her statement regarding the events that the police were not investigating. She wrote: “they have not requested any limitations be placed on the description of those events, however, I have decided not to publish factual accounts in relation to those four dates. I do not feel that I am able to do so without detriment to the overall balance of the findings”. The excuse makes no sense to me, but it is clear that that was of her own accord, and no-one else’s. What is the real reason?

Parliamentary scrutiny on this, as nowadays generally seems to be the case, has been minimal. MPs have concentrated on turning the whole thing into a matter of theatre centred on the main actor, Boris Johnson. Yet Boris seems confident in winning through, with the acquiescence of a large part of his own party, and the ineffectiveness of controlled opposition, whose leader is a member of the Neoconservative Trilateral Commission. The Institute for Government published an article headed ‘Parliament lacks real power to hold PM to account on Sue Gray report’. “The prime minister can choose when Gray’s report is shared – and how much of it is shared”, the author states, pointing out that MPs will have limited opportunities to question the prime minister on the report.

But what happens when the pressure becomes overwhelming? Now we need to look at the vested interests involved. Why the excessive focussing on Boris the man, rather than the whole tribe? Some people think that may be to sabotage Brexit. I have some sympathy with their argument, but I’m not sure I believe it, because I’m not sure that Boris himself supported Brexit for any reason other than political expedience. Whether or not that is the case, I think they are trying to protect the others who attended those parties. The Deep State could easily sacrifice Boris, and then it’s back to business as normal. Did they include people from the London Metropolitan Police? I think some of the focus should go onto their big boss, Cressida Dick. She should give a complete account of how and why she persuaded Sue Gray to hold back her report, and how publication of that report could prejudice the Metropolitan Police’s investigation. I never did get a satisfactory answer from the Metropolitan Police on their role in closing down one of our Keep Talking meetings, when they appeared to be aiding and abetting the cancel culture mob. It could now be more of the same. In that case, Cressida Dick should be forced out of office.

The cancel culture mob are now in force in silencing any dissent over the Covid issue. No open scientific debate is permitted. This is now on such a scale that it risks dwarfing the burning of the books by the National Socialists of the Third Reich. At stake are vast vested interests in the Pharmaceutical industry. Mega-corporations are now seen to be joining forces to squeeze out the little man, backed of course by central banks, which in themselves are more powerful than governments. So are the top civil servants, the police and the government all in collusion?

If that is the case, then they are unlikely to let a few mere scientists, medical experts and lawyers stand in their way. If the cancel culture mob can’t do it, then more repressive legislation is the answer. In 1976 Prime Minister Harold Wilson resigned in order to preempt a military takeover of the country under Lord Mountbatten. This was investigated and eventually broadcast on the BBC in 2006. Such a situation could well arise again, but with a different result. Yet the traditional Establishment of this country would much prefer to get the people behind them, believing the country to be in imminent danger. What Boris now needs is a war.

The crazy non-stop propaganda about Russia being about to invade Ukraine would fit the bill marvelously. The present rounding on ‘Putin’ is to me reminiscent of the hype they generated against Kaiser Wilhelm II in 1914. It all happened so quickly. It was obviously preplanned. Even as a child I wondered why I never understood that one. It didn’t make sense. Later in life I learned that in social matters – unlike in Physics – if it doesn’t make sense, then it’s probably not supposed to. Even President Zelensky of Ukraine has called upon Biden to calm things down a bit. That surprised me, because until then I thought the idea was to bolster up the Ukrainian government with a view to a military takeover of the Russian-speaking East of the country, and that they could preempt Russia from intervening to protect the Rusian-speaking East by accusing them of being the aggressor. Now it seems that Zelensky is being catapulted into a war he doesn’t want. Only the Western Deep State would want such a war.

Once a war breaks out, people will become completely acquiescent in anything the government tells them to do. During the Second World War the political parties weren’t contesting the elections against each other, with the sole exception of the Common Wealth Party, which believed in continuing with democracy. Nowadays politics is so tribal that people are anyway so easy to control. However they do it, it is likely that total repression could be on its way. The waters recede, then whoosh: the tidal wave sweeps in. The first part has happened. Are we ready for the tsunami itself?