by Jon Davy
Evidence of this government’s cynical deception and outright skulduggery is just mounting up.
The game is already up on the matter of penalising entire communities using the excuse of infection stats that are clearly false. The government KNOWS they are false because they derive from PCR tests that are known to be completely unsuited to the task they are assigned but it just goes right ahead using them anyway.
But now it has emerged that even the false stats are used without any consistency or scientific rationale as the government just makes it up as it goes alone – and by a remarkable coincidence poorer constituencies are penalised whilst wealthier Tory strongholds are left alone.
How many crimes must be committed, how many lies told, liberties taken and businesses ruined on the justification of a pandemic already exposed as a hoax before the subversive and divisive traitors that have infiltrated our government are removed?
The following article is from The Times, of 4th October 2020 (we have added some emphases):
“Wealthy areas, including the chancellor Rishi Sunak’s parliamentary seat, are avoiding lockdown despite having higher Covid-19 rates than poorer areas that are subject to restrictions, according to leaked emails between health officials.
The government is under growing pressure to explain why it has placed large parts of the north and Midlands under local lockdowns while overlooking areas with similar infection rates. Asked why the northwest is “treated differently” from areas such as his own seat of Uxbridge and South Ruislip in west London, Boris Johnson said on Friday: “I appreciate … people want to see an iron consistency applied across the whole country.”
Matt Hancock, the health secretary, decides which areas to place in lockdown during weekly “gold” meetings with advisers. Yesterday, 50 councils were subject to measures such as bans on household mixing. However, there is no official Covid-19 infection rate that triggers a local lockdown.
On Thursday, Professor Dominic Harrison, the director of public health for Blackburn with Darwen, the largest borough in the wider Lancashire area, wrote to Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) officials, saying the measures were “avoidably increasing economic inequality”. He said: “There is now a different level of central control applied across local authorities, with some of the more economically challenged boroughs being placed into more restrictive control measures at an earlier point in their … case rate trajectory.
“This has the effect of exacerbating the economic inequality impacts of the virus in those areas. We urgently need consistency in the national strategy if the control system itself is not to add to inequality, giving an economic ‘double whammy’ to more challenged areas.”
His comments come amid a row between ministers and mayors over lockdown policy. Andy Preston, the Middlesbrough mayor, last week said he did “not accept” the latest measures and said local leaders could effectively “preserve jobs and wellbeing”. He has since U-turned.
Blackburn with Darwen is one of Britain’s poorest boroughs. Its Covid rate peaked at 212 weekly cases per 100,000 people. When officials first imposed lockdowns in the area in August, they intervened in wards where the weekly rate exceeded 60 new cases per 100,000. A similar benchmark has been used elsewhere.
However, Harrison produced figures last week to suggest that wealthier areas with similar or higher rates were avoiding lockdown. Richmondshire in North Yorkshire, which includes Sunak’s constituency and is one of the least deprived areas in Britain, has 73 new cases for every 100,000 people. Newark and Sherwood, represented by Robert Jenrick, the housing secretary, and Mark Spencer, the chief whip, stands at 84. Both areas have avoided lockdown.
In contrast, Wolverhampton, another poorer area, has 56 cases per 100,000 yet remains in lockdown. Chorley, at 72, Lancaster, at 66, and Oadby and Wigston, at 63, are also subject to lockdowns.
Several “red wall” seats that voted Tory at the last election have avoided lockdown, including Barrow-in-Furness (112) , Darlington (110) and Wakefield (73). Of all areas where infections exceed 70 but lockdown has been avoided, the majority are represented by Tory MPs.
Steve Reed, shadow housing secretary, said: “People living in the north and Midlands will be asking why they’re having to face restrictions when other parts of the country that have seen infections rise are not.” The DHSC said the incidence rate was only one criterion considered in deciding on lockdowns.”
And if you want to see which MPs betrayed their country by failing to vote to repeal the oppressive Coronavirus Act on 3oth September, you’ll find a full list of these Enemies of the People here.
First featured on UK Reloaded
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.