The four defendants will be Matt Hancock, Chris Whitty, Patrick Vallance and Neil Ferguson, each of whom has inextricable and ultimately incriminating connections with Bill Gates and Big Pharma.
Latest update from @TheBernician
1/19
Hancock, Whitty, Vallance & Ferguson Stand Accused of Pandemic Fraud.
After yet more damning evidence arose last week, further additions had to be made to the court papers, which we are now aiming to lay in the coming week.
The four defendants will be Matt Hancock, Chris Whitty, Patrick Vallance and Neil Ferguson, each of whom has inextricable and ultimately incriminating connections with Bill Gates and Big Pharma.
As well as three counts of fraud by false representation and seven counts of fraud by non-disclosure, under sections 2 and 3 of the Fraud Act 2006, we can now also prove that the entire worldwide scamdemic originated on these shores.
In fact, we can show that, without the dishonest statements and non-disclosures of the four defendants we are initially proceeding against, COVID-1984 would not have transpired.
Furthermore, the 1st defendant, Matt Hancock, cannot rely upon the defence of Parliamentary Privilege, on the ground that none of the evidence relied upon by the prosecution is capable of preventing parliamentarians from carrying out their lawful business in Parliament.
The motive for conspiring to commit the heinous crimes alleged was paradoxically simple despite the complexity of the deceptions perpetrated - the maximisation of 'vaccination' uptake, as per the UN's Sustainable Development Goal of 'immunising' the entire world population.
Just imagine, if you will, a man charged with poisoning people to death with lethal pharmaceuticals being tried before a jury rigged with people who have direct links to the companies who researched, developed, manufactured and distributed the poisons which killed...
...the alleged victims.
The prosecution barrister would no doubt successfully apply for a mistrial, on the ground that the jurors were prejudiced by blatant conflicts of interest, which would more than hamper the delivery of a just decision, upon the evidence.
Now transpose those circumstances to COVID-1984, change the defendant to 'vaccine' and change the jury for the secretary of state for the DHSC, the chief medical officer, the chief scientific officer and the WHO's senior advisor on 'pandemic' identification...
...and response, and you will begin to comprehend how Big Pharma hijacked government policy, for the sole purpose of maximising 'vaccination' uptake, whatever the cost.
Furthermore, evidence has also arisen which demonstrates that Facebook and Google met with...
...the UK Government & agreed to censor any content which exposes this nefarious agenda.
Which naturally means the individuals concerned are complicit in the conspiracy to commit the criminal frauds alleged in the PCP, as well as being jointly and severally liable for...
...the consequences of them.
Given that Facebook deleted my last PCP Update and banned me from posting for 24 hours, then went on to do the same for simply sharing my own blog posts on the TGBMS page, we will hold those actions as evidence of...
...conspiracy to commit fraud, along with any other similar acts of censorship which precede and follow this public notice.
However, before I end this brief dispatch from the frozen north, once again I must pay tribute to the tens of thousands of people who have...
...never wavered in supporting this endeavour, since the moment you knew of its existence.
Take heart that our ever-growing number is about to explode exponentially, when the details of the utterly compelling prima facie evidence we have amassed become public knowledge.
For those of you who have been following my work for a decade or more, this moment of sudden widespread realisation will be akin to the moment people heard, in the summer of 2014, that a certain stubborn Geordie recalcitrant, against all the might of the...
...rigged system, proved mortgage fraud in the high court and had a fraudulent mortgage cancelled by the Land Registry.
Until that happened, even most of those who supported my work at the time never believed it would actually happen, until it did.
From my own perspective, this stage of the PCP feels identical in nature, but I have absolutely no problem with the doubts, skepticism and nihilism of others, which can easily cloud the mind at terrifying, tumultuous and tyrannical times such as these.
More from Culture
I just finished Eric Adler's The Battle of the Classics, and wanted to say something about Joel Christiansen's review linked below. I am not sure what motivates the review (I speculate a bit below), but it gives a very misleading impression of the book. 1/x
The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x
Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x
The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x
It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x
As someone\u2019s who\u2019s read the book, this review strikes me as tremendously unfair. It mostly faults Adler for not writing the book the reviewer wishes he had! https://t.co/pqpt5Ziivj
— Teresa M. Bejan (@tmbejan) January 12, 2021
The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x
Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x
The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x
It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x
You May Also Like
THREAD: 12 Things Everyone Should Know About IQ
1. IQ is one of the most heritable psychological traits – that is, individual differences in IQ are strongly associated with individual differences in genes (at least in fairly typical modern environments). https://t.co/3XxzW9bxLE
2. The heritability of IQ *increases* from childhood to adulthood. Meanwhile, the effect of the shared environment largely fades away. In other words, when it comes to IQ, nature becomes more important as we get older, nurture less. https://t.co/UqtS1lpw3n
3. IQ scores have been increasing for the last century or so, a phenomenon known as the Flynn effect. https://t.co/sCZvCst3hw (N ≈ 4 million)
(Note that the Flynn effect shows that IQ isn't 100% genetic; it doesn't show that it's 100% environmental.)
4. IQ predicts many important real world outcomes.
For example, though far from perfect, IQ is the single-best predictor of job performance we have – much better than Emotional Intelligence, the Big Five, Grit, etc. https://t.co/rKUgKDAAVx https://t.co/DWbVI8QSU3
5. Higher IQ is associated with a lower risk of death from most causes, including cardiovascular disease, respiratory disease, most forms of cancer, homicide, suicide, and accident. https://t.co/PJjGNyeQRA (N = 728,160)
1. IQ is one of the most heritable psychological traits – that is, individual differences in IQ are strongly associated with individual differences in genes (at least in fairly typical modern environments). https://t.co/3XxzW9bxLE
2. The heritability of IQ *increases* from childhood to adulthood. Meanwhile, the effect of the shared environment largely fades away. In other words, when it comes to IQ, nature becomes more important as we get older, nurture less. https://t.co/UqtS1lpw3n
3. IQ scores have been increasing for the last century or so, a phenomenon known as the Flynn effect. https://t.co/sCZvCst3hw (N ≈ 4 million)
(Note that the Flynn effect shows that IQ isn't 100% genetic; it doesn't show that it's 100% environmental.)
4. IQ predicts many important real world outcomes.
For example, though far from perfect, IQ is the single-best predictor of job performance we have – much better than Emotional Intelligence, the Big Five, Grit, etc. https://t.co/rKUgKDAAVx https://t.co/DWbVI8QSU3
5. Higher IQ is associated with a lower risk of death from most causes, including cardiovascular disease, respiratory disease, most forms of cancer, homicide, suicide, and accident. https://t.co/PJjGNyeQRA (N = 728,160)
