Dictatorship Incoming in the United Kingdom

Dictatorship Incoming in the United Kingdom

Robin Bonotti, on the vaccine passports

UK Government Considering Mandatory Covid Vaccine Passports for Workplace

The UK government has suggested that vaccine passports should not only be required for clubs, pubs, and restaurants, but also for office workers when returning to the workplace.

Vaccine passports: The promise and pitfalls
Image source: Yahoo! News
This news comes as Boris Johnson recently announced that Brits will be required to show proof of vaccination to enter nightclubs from September.

The Department for Health and Social Care (DHSC) indicated that the passport system should be used everywhere.

In a press release issued just days before Freedom Day, the DHSC stated that: “As many as 10.4 million people have now signed up the NHS App with over 6 million new users since the COVID-19 vaccination service was added on 17th May.

“The app’s COVID-19 vaccine status service allows users easily to show their proof of vaccine, which will help people to travel abroad, start returning to workplaces, and attend largescale events as we cautiously proceed with the roadmap.”

However, the press release did not specify which workplaces might seek to use them, although government sources said that there had been no change in policy.

The documents appear to show that the recommendations look identical to previous Covid restrictions, with measures such as social distancing, mask-wearing, and plastic screens to be kept in place.

This news follows as Boris Johnson recently announced that the public will have to show proof of vaccination to enter nightclubs and attend large events from September, whilst encouraging hospitality venues to ask for proof of vaccination or test status via the NHS Covid Pass, from Freedom Day.

However, the government has stated that it will be up to landlords and venue management to determine whether vaccine passports will be necessary for entry. Despite this, government guidance has warned that if “sufficient measures are not taken to limit infection, the Government will consider mandating the NHS COVID Pass in certain venues at a later date.”

The NHS Covid Pass allows people to prove their Covid status, whether through a negative test, proof that they are fully vaccinated, or have Covid antibodies.

If fully implemented, Brits will have to prove that they are fully vaccinated to return to work, and the app will also be used to enforce all future booster shots required by big pharma and the government.

These tyrannical restrictions have already been introduced in France, whereby vaccine passports have been mandatory for French citizens to access “non-essential” services such as bars, restaurants, trains, shopping centres, and domestic flights.

President Macron also announced that healthcare workers must get the Covid-19 vaccine or face fines, sanctions, and losing their job.

In the UK, the government recently voted in favour of making the Covid jabs mandatory for care home staff, meaning that from October, those working in this industry must get the vaccine or face being suspended or being sacked.

The recent introduction of vaccine passports has sparked protests in France, and the UK, and other countries around the world. On Saturday 17th July, tens of thousands of protesters marched through the streets of France, protesting the introduction of mandatory vaccine passports.

On the 19th July Freedom Day, thousands of Brits gathered in London to protest the Covid restrictions and the announcement of domestic vaccine passports. Of course, the mainstream media failed to report on the protest, whilst online media outlets ridiculed those attending, labelling them as “conspiracy theorists.”

It is disturbing to see that the government are seeking to make vaccine passports mandatory to be able to work, yet it is unsurprising as we know that this was the plan from the start. The population are only awarded their freedoms when they comply, and now compliance is determined by proof of vaccination just to engage in activities outside of the house.

It seems like we are heading in a direction where those who don’t comply with this medical apartheid will be ostracised with no job prospects, no social life, and eventually no ability to enter shops or supermarkets.

Journalists could face up to 14 years in prison for stories embarrassing the Government under proposed changes to the Official Secrets Act that would treat them like foreign SPIES

  • Change to law would remove defence for reporters handed leaked documents 
  • Home Office says it would ‘undermine efforts to prevent damaging disclosures’
  • Maximum jail term for journalists could go from two to 14 years under proposal

Daily Mail,

20 July, 2021


Journalists could face prison sentences of up to 14 years for stories that embarrass the Government under plans to reform the Official Secrets Act. 

Under a consultation run by Priti Patel’s Home Office, which closes later this week, reporters who handle leaked documents would not have a defence if charged under new laws designed to clamp down on foreign agents.

The 1989 act is being updated to take into account the impact of the internet age, especially in the area of speedy data transfer.

Human rights organisations and the Law Commission, which drew up the proposals, say there should be a ‘public interest defence’ included to prevent the prosecution of journalists who receive leaked documents. 

But in a paper released for the consultation, the Home Office said such a move would ‘undermine our efforts to prevent damaging unauthorised disclosures, which would not be in the public interest’.

Critics suggested that if the rules were in place now it could have led to a prosecution of the journalists who revealed this month that Matt Hancock was breaking Covid rules by having an affair with his married aide, because it relied on leaked CCTV footage. 

The revelation prompted his resignation and the end of his marriage. But last week the Information Commissioner’s Office faced criticism for searching two homes as part of an investigation into how the material emerged and found its way onto the Sun’s front page. 

Under a consultation run by Priti Patel's Home Office, which closes later this week, reporters who handle leaked documents would not have a defence if charged under new laws clamping down on foreign agents.

Under a consultation run by Priti Patel’s Home Office, which closes later this week, reporters who handle leaked documents would not have a defence if charged under new laws clamping down on foreign agents.

Critics suggested that if the rules were in place now it could have led to a prosecution of the journalists who revealed this month that Matt Hancock was breaking Covid rules by having an affair with his married aide, because it relied on leaked CCTV footage.

Critics suggested that if the rules were in place now it could have led to a prosecution of the journalists who revealed this month that Matt Hancock was breaking Covid rules by having an affair with his married aide, because it relied on leaked CCTV footage.

Among those who have criticised the new laws are the Index on Censorship and the Open Rights Group, who view it as an attack on whistleblowers.

A spokeswoman for the National Union of Journalists said: ‘Existing legislation distinguishes provisions and penalties between those who leak or whistleblow, those who receive leaked information, and foreign spies. 

‘The government proposes to eliminate or blur these distinctions. The government also wants to increase the maximum penalties that journalists might suffer for receiving leaked material from two to 14 years….

‘The NUJ has long argued that where whistleblowers believe that they have acted in the public interest, they should be able to make this case in court, and if a jury agree with them, be protected.’

But the Home Office document argues: ‘Since the passage of the Act in 1989, there have been unprecedented developments in communications technology (including data storage and rapid data transfer tools) which in our view, means that unauthorised disclosures are now capable of causing far more serious damage than would have been possible previously. 

‘As a result, we do not consider that there is necessarily a distinction in severity between espionage and the most serious unauthorised disclosures, in the same way that there was in 1989. 

‘Although there are differences in the mechanics of and motivations behind espionage and unauthorised disclosure offences, there are cases where an unauthorised disclosure may be as or more serious, in terms of intent and/or damage. 

‘For example, documents made available online can now be accessed and utilised by a wide range of hostile actors simultaneously, whereas espionage will often only be to the benefit of a single state or actor.

‘In severe cases, the unauthorised disclosure of the identities of agents working for the UK intelligence community, for example, could directly lead to imminent and serious threat to life.’

It comes just days after the UN demanded closer regulation of surveillance tech following extensive revelations of phone hacking targeting journalists, activists and politicians.

They have been spied on using cellphone malware developed by a private Israeli firm, it emerged on Sunday.

The use of the software, called Pegasus and developed by Israel’s NSO group, was exposed in a data leak containing 50,000 phone numbers that belong to people targeted by NSO’s clients since 2016.

Among those clients are some of the world’s most-repressive government regimes, including Hungary, Saudi Arabia and Morocco.

A Home Office spokesman said: ‘Freedom of press is an integral part of the UK’s democratic processes and the government is committed to protecting the rights and values that we hold so dear.

‘It is wrong to claim the proposals will put journalists at risk of being treated like spies and they will, rightly, remain free to hold the government to account. 

‘We will introduce new legislation so security services and law enforcement agencies can tackle evolving state threats and protect sensitive data. 

‘However, this will be balanced to protect press freedom and the ability for whistleblowers to hold organisations to account when there are serious allegations of wrongdoing.’

When will this end?

Living Proof.

I remember, some open minded people said,

We’d all have to be vaccinated late last year,

The trolls came out in force and said,


Spreading panic, lies, and fear,

Yet here we are, just eight months past,

And the lies and fear are now the truth,

For eighty seven percent of the population, or more, being jabbed,

Isn’t conspiracy theory, no, it’s real, it’s living proof.

Some open minded people said,

There was a lab in Wuhan, that experimented on lethal pathogens, how could this fact be missed?

The trolls came out and laughed and said,

The lab wasn’t there and no way did the lab exist,

Yet now it’s common knowledge,

That this lab is there, it’s not a lie, or myth, or goof,

It exists and it’s been funded by the west,

It’s not a fabulous conspiracy, it’s real and we have the living proof.

Some open minded people said,

That the jab wouldn’t just be for the vulnerable and old,

The trolls came out in force once again and said,

Shut your lying mouths and just do as your told,

Yet here we just eight months past,

And these perverted bastards want to jab our kids and youth,

They’re set to start jabbing in the fall,

So once again, this isn’t conspiracy theory, it’s  real, it’s just the living truth.

Some open minded people said,

That you’d need a vaccine passport to live a life,

The trolls came out with their venomous bile,

And online grief and strife,

Yet here we are, just eight months past,


And vaccine passports are real, they’re not a spoof,

Because to gain entry to some public places you have to prove your double jabbed or you can’t get in, It’s not conspiracy theory, I’ve just watched it on the news,

My own eyes and ears witnessed it, it’s real,

I saw and heard the living proof.

For the last year and a half open minded people have faced ridicule,

They’ve faced a barrage of anger, shame and spite,

For daring to tell the truth that’s on plain view,

Though big tech have tried with all their might,

To stop the facts being accepted,

So people didn’t rise to stop the tyranny and being trampled under boot and hoof,

So to all the trolls I now say, openly, go fuck yourselves,

The gloves are off,

Because through your ‘conspiracy theory’ bullshit,

We can all see, clearly, the living proof.

—Chris McGlade 19th July ‘freedom’ day 2021…

Parents are subject to court orders stripping them of their parental rights with the imposition of immediate vaccination of their children.

Michael Yeadon

With the current health crisis, we are witnessing how the media spin a constant pro-vax narrative geared to the imposition of a universal and undifferentiated vaccine mandate with no regard for individual biological status.  In our opinion, this is nothing short of a biological, sociological and medical aberration.  Like General Dallaire in Rwanda, some scientists and lawyers are warning the public authorities of the health and sociological risks of a vaccine mandate but there is nothing they can do.  They stand powerless as they witness the growing division of society.  Their voices are overpowered by the mass media which, as Radio Mille Collines was able to do, pit people against each other.  According to our media and the experts interviewed on television, there are two kinds of citizen:

• The good ones who comply with all the health restrictions and get vaccinated “for the common good”,

• The “bad” citizens who question these repressive policies and are even considered “health criminals” because they refuse to get vaccinated.  In truth, these so-called “bad citizens” are actually people who think for themselves and question the official health narrative pushing for a vaccine mandate.  These are people who fear for their own health and for that of their loved ones.

In spite of the initial political discourse which reassured us that freedom of vaccine choice would be maintained, mandatory coronavirus vaccination is looming on the horizon.  Yesterday, as I was listening to France-Inter, it was clear how the bill is being clarified.  Here again, it is all based on figures shamefully manipulated in an effort to justify such a mandate.  In our opinion, this is criminal.

At the same time, we are seeing rising concern in the general population at the prospect of a vaccine mandate.  Whatever the media say to persuade us that people are queuing up outside the vaccination centres, our belief is that people are afraid of this vaccine.  They fear not only losing their health but also their jobs.

Those who contact us are reporting an increasing number of adverse effects amongst their relatives, friends and neighbours; even sometimes these people are suffering themselves.  Reportedly, never in the history of vaccination has a vaccine caused so much damage.  Yesterday morning, I received a report from a law firm specialising in compensation for medical accident victims.  They say they are now receiving increasing numbers of claims from families: death, thrombosis, heart attacks.

Faced with denial from the authorities and from prescribing physicians and vaccinators, the Ligue is increasingly solicited…whether for the 11 compulsory childhood vaccines or for the Covid-19 vaccine, these are currently the two battles we fight.  We have no solutions, no messages of hope to offer.  This powerlessness we feel is shared by so many people in France and worldwide.  It’s an absolute impotence, so deleterious because these people have no association to support them and no legal recourse!  Where do they turn?

Many families have already had to cope with genuine tragedy caused by the childhood vaccines, others are now discovering the horror, the enormous risks of the Covid-19 vaccine.  Increasing numbers are now enlightened.  They are becoming aware of the crime perpetrated not only against their physical integrity but also against their values.  Will they allow it to continue?

This brings me to consideration of how this crisis will evolve if the vaccine is mandated.  I only see two options:

• Either there will be a civil war between the pro-vax contingent and those who believe in freedom of vaccine choice combined with the real anti-vaxxers.  In such a case, we can at least hope for a positive outcome for freedom of vaccine choice.

• Or, there will be a genuine health and also social disaster.

From yesterday



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Wordpress Social Share Plugin powered by Ultimatelysocial