I flew to London for a June 11 hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice - a judicial review of UK 'Media Regulator' OfCom's sanctions against respected commentator Mark Steyn.
Orwell all over the place. If an assertion can successfully be characterized as a conspiracy theory, then there is no need to bother about whether it's true or not; it can properly be dismissed on general principles.
Harmful. One might naturally assume that harmful in this context means harmful or potentially harmful to the main mass of the population (or even everybody). But we have some mental slight of hand going on, where harmful really means -- now -- harmful to the interests of the power elite.
I find it very disturbing that OfCom has no interest, and seems to be not even conscious of the problems created in "vulnerable people" by increasing the risk they will take a dangerous action that just happens to be recommended by the medical industrial governmental bureaucracies.
The WEF's cowardly faceless puppets at UK's CORRUPT Ofcom are totally out of control. Their mission is to hide truth at every opportunity, on behalf of Big Pharma, and to destroy those amongst us that have the balls to spread the TRUTH about dangers from mRNA injections designed to depopulate the planet!
If Pfizer and other manufacturers of poisonous injected materials were subject to 'LIABILITY' this farce would not exist.
Instead, Pfizer can continue to pretend to test and trial their profitable poisons with absolute freedom from any culpability, because Pfizer, et al, control the fake Government bodies that were tasked with policing medicines for human wellbeing. The Ofcom fake 'safety net' is bought and paid for by Pfizer and all other evil members of Big Pharma. They continue to profit from the CULL BY INJECTION program specified by The WEF's New World Order.
Unjabbed Mick! I'll live longer without evil, profitable medical intervention.
Great stuff. I listened in the car, so I wasn't able to take notes - and there are many things I'd like to comment about but can't remember them all. Here's one:
There is a difference between:
- committing mass murder: is either a fact if it has occurred or is occurring, or not a fact if it did not occur and is not occurring. Naming it is not being a "conspiracy theorist". It is simply naming a fact, or claiming an untrue fact. Facts can be checked.
- a conspiracy to commit mass murder is, likewise, either a fact if it has occurred or is occurring, or it is a not a fact if it did not occur and is not occurring.
-claiming a conspiracy (to commit mass murder, for example), is an accusation, not a "conspiracy theory."
- a conspiracy theorist, in logical English is someone who postulates, creates and discusses theories about conspiracist that surround us. Many businesses are "conspiracies" by design. However, the ruling establishment has taken over logic. Today,
- when most people today say "conspiracy theorist" they are really saying "false-conspiracy theorist". They are claiming or accusing someone of creating or believing in conspiracies are false, that do not exist. It's convenient, because it permits people who don't think, or don't want to think, or are not able to think or investigate a simple solution. All "conspiracy theories" are therefore false, therefore, no conspiracies exist. Life is good!
- accused of being a "conspiracy theorist" is actually being accused of being a "false-conspiracy" theorist, of spreading "false-conspiracy theories." It is simply a slur. It is not even a real accusation, because an accusation requires specifics. There is no interest and no incentive to describe or detail the false-conspiracy that the subject is "accused" of believing or spreading. Describing and discussing the actual "conspiracy" would facilitate a defense. Those who accuse "conspiracy theorist" or "spreading conspiracy theories" can't bear to face such scrutiny. This is why the accusers of OfCom are not interested in facts. Accusing "conspiracy theory" facilitates dismissal of facts.
It is becoming clear just how clever this legislation is, although it would not have been apparent at the time, since "protecting people from harm" sounds so nice and cuddly.
The law can mean anything Ofcom want it to mean. And they can shut down any opinions they don´t like. All the definitions are subjective in nature.
This legislation is one of many time-bombs planted by the Blair government. Almost everything that is going wrong in Britain today can be traced back to Blair's reign of terror.
I sensed this man's demonic intent right from the start, and in 1999 I started moving my assets to Florida, where I still feel safe. What will happen in Florida when DeSantis' term expires I do not know.
What a ridiculous argument presented by OfCom. And to say that this information could have a negative effect on the health of the listener. God forbid the truth be told and people of free will make their own decisions about their health.
Sorry for addressing you in such an informal and irreverent manner. The truth is that we never met but I learned to know you from your writings and your other media presentations.
After your engaging in the fight for truth you became really dear to me.
We are living in a post Christian and post truth age, and we know the tribulations which await us.
I follow the Jewish man who said: "I am the way, the truth and the life", Jesus Christ my Lord and Saviour. I know that you have a lot in common with him and that he would love to spend a generous part of eternity talking with you, so please prepare yourself for the joy of being in his company.
When you have talked with him I hope that you will spare a minute to have a chat with me also.
Stay brave, stay truthful and stay abundantly blessed dear Naomi!
Why do these individuals believe THEY have any right to police others’ opinions - or the presentation of facts from Pfizer documents?
These WICKED bureaucrats - doing the bidding ultimately of oligarchs - are either IGNORANT of the foundational role freedom of expression plays in maintaining any half-way fair society.....OR they know perfectly well but they’re suppressing our RIGHTS because they’re paid to be little dictators or simply like abusing power.
The hypocrisy is sickening. The whole thing is so ironic, I can hardly stand it. Just about everything they say actually applies to mainstream media and mainstream medicine. People might believe what they say and might make harmful decisions based on their expert advice, their status, and their positions of authority.
I couldn’t help but think … what if someone at OfCom is trying to get the word out? Every time they are compelled to quote what you or Marc said, they are multiplying the people who will hear it. In trying to suppress it, they are broadcasting it even more, and getting it put down in official documents for posterity. I find it quite humorous…. :)
Briefly - at approx 20 minutes in, I beleve you quote Ofcom's duty under the 2003 Communications Act as being to protect the public from material which is "harmful and offensive". That is "harmful AND offensive", not "harmful OR offensive". If I have got this right (and I´m quoting from memory) that is an important distinction.
Ofcom may try, with Alice-in-Wonderland logic, to argue that Mark´s programme was "harmful" even if true. But they will surely struggle to show that it was also "offensive".
Ditto on the thanks. I remain in awe at the magnitude of the battle Dr Wolf has taken on with OffCon. Dr Wolf represents millions of people who just want to hear a conversation and hear people's best informed opinions on the most accurate information and arguments that they have access to. Dialogue does not need to be policed. This whole move to identify misinfo and disinfo, by the government no less, is dead in the water. Sayonara. Civilized people seeking the truth will have nothing to do with the likes of OffCon.
Orwell all over the place. If an assertion can successfully be characterized as a conspiracy theory, then there is no need to bother about whether it's true or not; it can properly be dismissed on general principles.
Harmful. One might naturally assume that harmful in this context means harmful or potentially harmful to the main mass of the population (or even everybody). But we have some mental slight of hand going on, where harmful really means -- now -- harmful to the interests of the power elite.
''Humanity is about to be tested....... mayankjeptha.substack.com/p/qbpe
Project on this you fuckin whore of Babylon! 😤😉😎🤣
https://substack.com/@merrick1/note/c-59827280
I read somewhere that CNN will broadcast this with a 2 minute delay. That will let them edit out Biden falling asleep or having a brain freeze.
I find it very disturbing that OfCom has no interest, and seems to be not even conscious of the problems created in "vulnerable people" by increasing the risk they will take a dangerous action that just happens to be recommended by the medical industrial governmental bureaucracies.
The WEF's cowardly faceless puppets at UK's CORRUPT Ofcom are totally out of control. Their mission is to hide truth at every opportunity, on behalf of Big Pharma, and to destroy those amongst us that have the balls to spread the TRUTH about dangers from mRNA injections designed to depopulate the planet!
If Pfizer and other manufacturers of poisonous injected materials were subject to 'LIABILITY' this farce would not exist.
Instead, Pfizer can continue to pretend to test and trial their profitable poisons with absolute freedom from any culpability, because Pfizer, et al, control the fake Government bodies that were tasked with policing medicines for human wellbeing. The Ofcom fake 'safety net' is bought and paid for by Pfizer and all other evil members of Big Pharma. They continue to profit from the CULL BY INJECTION program specified by The WEF's New World Order.
Unjabbed Mick! I'll live longer without evil, profitable medical intervention.
Great stuff. I listened in the car, so I wasn't able to take notes - and there are many things I'd like to comment about but can't remember them all. Here's one:
There is a difference between:
- committing mass murder: is either a fact if it has occurred or is occurring, or not a fact if it did not occur and is not occurring. Naming it is not being a "conspiracy theorist". It is simply naming a fact, or claiming an untrue fact. Facts can be checked.
- a conspiracy to commit mass murder is, likewise, either a fact if it has occurred or is occurring, or it is a not a fact if it did not occur and is not occurring.
-claiming a conspiracy (to commit mass murder, for example), is an accusation, not a "conspiracy theory."
- a conspiracy theorist, in logical English is someone who postulates, creates and discusses theories about conspiracist that surround us. Many businesses are "conspiracies" by design. However, the ruling establishment has taken over logic. Today,
- when most people today say "conspiracy theorist" they are really saying "false-conspiracy theorist". They are claiming or accusing someone of creating or believing in conspiracies are false, that do not exist. It's convenient, because it permits people who don't think, or don't want to think, or are not able to think or investigate a simple solution. All "conspiracy theories" are therefore false, therefore, no conspiracies exist. Life is good!
- accused of being a "conspiracy theorist" is actually being accused of being a "false-conspiracy" theorist, of spreading "false-conspiracy theories." It is simply a slur. It is not even a real accusation, because an accusation requires specifics. There is no interest and no incentive to describe or detail the false-conspiracy that the subject is "accused" of believing or spreading. Describing and discussing the actual "conspiracy" would facilitate a defense. Those who accuse "conspiracy theorist" or "spreading conspiracy theories" can't bear to face such scrutiny. This is why the accusers of OfCom are not interested in facts. Accusing "conspiracy theory" facilitates dismissal of facts.
It is becoming clear just how clever this legislation is, although it would not have been apparent at the time, since "protecting people from harm" sounds so nice and cuddly.
The law can mean anything Ofcom want it to mean. And they can shut down any opinions they don´t like. All the definitions are subjective in nature.
This legislation is one of many time-bombs planted by the Blair government. Almost everything that is going wrong in Britain today can be traced back to Blair's reign of terror.
I sensed this man's demonic intent right from the start, and in 1999 I started moving my assets to Florida, where I still feel safe. What will happen in Florida when DeSantis' term expires I do not know.
What a ridiculous argument presented by OfCom. And to say that this information could have a negative effect on the health of the listener. God forbid the truth be told and people of free will make their own decisions about their health.
M' Lady.,
The most Sincere appreciation!!!!!!!!!!!!
Excellent Health,
ALWAYS--------
Dear Naomi,
Sorry for addressing you in such an informal and irreverent manner. The truth is that we never met but I learned to know you from your writings and your other media presentations.
After your engaging in the fight for truth you became really dear to me.
We are living in a post Christian and post truth age, and we know the tribulations which await us.
I follow the Jewish man who said: "I am the way, the truth and the life", Jesus Christ my Lord and Saviour. I know that you have a lot in common with him and that he would love to spend a generous part of eternity talking with you, so please prepare yourself for the joy of being in his company.
When you have talked with him I hope that you will spare a minute to have a chat with me also.
Stay brave, stay truthful and stay abundantly blessed dear Naomi!
And a couple of minutes later we hear "harmful OR offensive". And this was drawn up by a lawyer?
I see that at about 25 minutes in, "harmful AND offensive" has now become "harmful AND/OR offensive". There is a distinction.
Which is it?
Good point!
The whole argument is a dog’s dinner.
What is ‘harm’?
What’s ‘offensive’?
Who’s the arbiter of harm & offense?
What are their criteria?
Why do these individuals believe THEY have any right to police others’ opinions - or the presentation of facts from Pfizer documents?
These WICKED bureaucrats - doing the bidding ultimately of oligarchs - are either IGNORANT of the foundational role freedom of expression plays in maintaining any half-way fair society.....OR they know perfectly well but they’re suppressing our RIGHTS because they’re paid to be little dictators or simply like abusing power.
The hypocrisy is sickening. The whole thing is so ironic, I can hardly stand it. Just about everything they say actually applies to mainstream media and mainstream medicine. People might believe what they say and might make harmful decisions based on their expert advice, their status, and their positions of authority.
I couldn’t help but think … what if someone at OfCom is trying to get the word out? Every time they are compelled to quote what you or Marc said, they are multiplying the people who will hear it. In trying to suppress it, they are broadcasting it even more, and getting it put down in official documents for posterity. I find it quite humorous…. :)
I agree that it’s sickening.
As so often these days, the criminals are accusing the decent people of the wrongdoing THEY commit.
These are the people who think it’s fine to inject babies & pregnant women with TOXIC junk. THAT is HARM.
Either this is some serious gaslighting, or they've got Gatorade for the UK municipal water.
Briefly - at approx 20 minutes in, I beleve you quote Ofcom's duty under the 2003 Communications Act as being to protect the public from material which is "harmful and offensive". That is "harmful AND offensive", not "harmful OR offensive". If I have got this right (and I´m quoting from memory) that is an important distinction.
Ofcom may try, with Alice-in-Wonderland logic, to argue that Mark´s programme was "harmful" even if true. But they will surely struggle to show that it was also "offensive".
Offensive to paid trolls and useful idiots.
Thank you, Dr Wolf
🇺🇸⚖️ 5 US states to be suing Pfizer: https://open.substack.com/pub/petersweden/p/huge-five-states-will-be-suing-pfizer?r=20pd6j&utm_medium=ios
Ditto on the thanks. I remain in awe at the magnitude of the battle Dr Wolf has taken on with OffCon. Dr Wolf represents millions of people who just want to hear a conversation and hear people's best informed opinions on the most accurate information and arguments that they have access to. Dialogue does not need to be policed. This whole move to identify misinfo and disinfo, by the government no less, is dead in the water. Sayonara. Civilized people seeking the truth will have nothing to do with the likes of OffCon.
Yes indeed
🇦🇺💉Forest of the Fallen displays down here are a real eye-opener: https://www.instagram.com/reel/C6AvdPPpEHo/?igsh=MXQxajAxOGs2b3hyaQ==