AndyMac

Beware the 'Jabaganda'.

I don't speak GIF.

Don't subscribe to me.
I'll just assume you're a bot or a troll.

[ETHICAL APPROACH UK @EthicalApproach]

THE NOVEL ONE WOULD NOT DARE TO WRITE

Imagine pitching this plot to a publisher.

The editor would probably send it back.

“Interesting, but implausible. Government and policing simply wouldn’t operate like that. Try to make it more believable.”

So, purely as fiction, imagine the following.

A Government department becomes interested in a solicitor who is challenging aspects of Government Covid policy.

That department develops a distinctly unflattering view of him.

Words such as “vexatious” and “fraudulent” begin appearing in the story.

Meanwhile, elsewhere in Whitehall, the Home Office explains the constitutional position beautifully:

Police are “operationally independent of Government” and must be allowed to make decisions:

“free from political influence.”

Excellent - Our reader can relax.

There is, apparently, a nice thick constitutional wall between Government and operational policing.

Unfortunately, several chapters later, the former independent Chair of the Operation Talla policing ethics committee, the Bishop of Manchester, wanders into the House of Lords and rather spoils the plot.

He tells Parliament that the Committee was largely established because:

“police chief constables were under such pressure from Government Ministers”

that police wanted somebody independent to support them:

“in the face of that kind of ministerial overreach.”

At this point our long-suffering editor reaches for the red pen.

“No. Far too contrived.”

Because elsewhere in this increasingly improbable manuscript appears Operation Talla, the national Covid policing response and evidence concerning arrangements for the rejection and non-recording of certain Covid-related reports made to police.

And now somebody commits the unforgivable act of asking a very simple question:

Where did that policing position actually come from?

Was it conceived entirely within policing?

Did Government information or policy contribute to it?

Was there a governmental expectation which policing translated into operational guidance?

Did anybody in policing disagree?

And did the very Ethics Committee apparently created to protect policing against ministerial overreach ever consider it?

The Home Office:

The police make their decisions free from political influence.

The Bishop who chaired the Talla Ethics Committee:

Chief constables were under pressure from Ministers and wanted protection against ministerial overreach.

DHSC:

And have we mentioned that solicitor we have rather strong views about?

Pure fiction, naturally.

No competent novelist would put all three into the same plot.

It would be dismissed as hopelessly over-engineered.

Yet, here we actually are.

Perhaps the most interesting possibility is that we have spent too long asking whether the police were responsible for what subsequently happened.

Perhaps there is an earlier chapter still missing.

Identifying who typed, signed or circulated a piece of policing guidance does not necessarily establish its provenance.

The harder question is:

Who supplied the proposition that eventually became the guidance?

That is the chapter I now want to read, because somewhere between “free from political influence” and “ministerial overreach” lies an evidential gap and sitting somewhere inside that gap is likely to lie the explanation for a great deal more than anyone originally imagined.

[AndyMac @Andymac252]

@voice_stolen Marzipan.

[Rush @exRAF_Al]

Do give this a watch, it rings so true. Share it if you agree.

[Lee Nallalingham @LNallalingham]

🚨 IF THEY CAN’T PASS AN AUDIT, THEY CAN’T RAISE YOUR TAXES.

I’ve launched a petition to make this law:

❌ Fail audit = no tax rises and no bigger budget.

❌ Fail two years running = those responsible cannot stand for re-election.

Politicians should not be allowed to demand more of your money when they cannot properly account for the money they already have.

If you agree, please sign and share my petition.

Link: https://t.co/r4CliorXCJ

[Kerry Burgess @KerryBurgess]

It's incredible what's happening in Belfast. Over a million visitors have already attended this week, music on every train, bus and every corner. One massive party.
The Fleadh is back again next year, this is going to be a global event.
#FleadhCheoilNaHEireann

[𝔾𝕣𝕚𝕗𝕥𝕪 @TheGNPE]

🚨NEWS: Blackpool has rejected vertical drinking to encourage diversity as even more councils join the 'woke' crusade

Councils including Wolverhampton and Merton are discouraging stand up drinking at new premises

Explained: what it means is they are banning you from standing at the bar having a drink, this is a long standing British tradition and pub landlords are already warning this will destroy businesses, why do they keep trying to destroy everything that's British or tradition?

[AndyMac @Andymac252]

@EthicalApproach The Art of War.

[AndyMac @Andymac252]

@UKLabour Cough cough!

[AndyMac @Andymac252]

@UKLabour

[John Cleese @JohnCleese]

Is it possible to film a halal killing so that we can all see what it's like ?

Then we could know exactly what's involved and make our minds up about whether it should be allowed in this country

[ETHICAL APPROACH UK @EthicalApproach]

There comes a point within every constitutional democracy when a difficult question has to be asked.

What value does even the strongest evidence possess if there is no forum willing or able to give it proper effect?

Evidence, however compelling, has no independent force.

It requires institutions prepared to receive it, investigators prepared to examine it and courts prepared to consider it.

It requires constitutional office-holders prepared to discharge their duties without fear or favour.

Without those things, evidence simply accumulates.

Files become larger - Chronologies become longer - Questions become more numerous - though nothing changes.

The Rule of Law was never intended to be a system in which truth only exists. It was intended to be a system in which truth, once properly evidenced, could be acted upon.

That is why the integrity of constitutional institutions matters every bit as much as the quality of the evidence placed before them.

We should never have reached the point where citizens begin to ask whether the problem lies not in discovering the evidence......but in finding a constitutional forum capable of giving that evidence meaningful effect.

That, in my view, has become one of the sharpest defining constitutional questions of our present time.

[David Shaw @David90shaw]

🚨 EXCLUSIVE: THE FINAL NAIL IN THE COFFIN OF BRITISH FREEDOM!

Good morning to the millions of everyday Brits.

You are probably still asleep after we knocked out the Mexicans last night, but you need to wake up to a terrifying new reality!

It has just leaked that Andy Burnham is quietly preparing to enforce strict new VPN restrictions to stop teenagers bypassing his under-16 social media ban. 🤡

They are trying to spin this as protecting the kids, but here is the absolute nightmare they are hiding from you.

You cannot restrict VPNs just for children.

To enforce this, the state will be forced to ban, monitor, or require a mandatory Digital ID check for every single VPN user in the United Kingdom.

They are literally building a state-controlled internet firewall, copying the exact digital prison models used by China and North Korea.

They want total control over what you are allowed to see, say, and access online so they can completely kill off independent free speech.

We are trading a failed Prime Minister for a high-tech socialist dictatorship.

RT to completely blow up the UK timeline and demand our freedom back! 🔁🇬🇧🔥

[Valerie Anne Smith @ValerieAnne1970]

Digital ID: Here is the WEF's plan for you, straight from their website.

Their goal is to create a situation whereby every aspect of daily life—healthcare, banking, food, travel, internet, social media, communications, energy usage, etc—requires a valid digital ID, without which you are locked out.

Once that situation is in place, the conditions of validity can be adjusted to anything they want.

You didn't take the latest experimental mRNA injection? Then your Digital ID is invalid.

You posted something deemed "misinformation" on social media? Then your Digital ID is invalid.

Your social credit score fell too low? Your Digital ID will be invalid.

You exceeded your monthly carbon allowance? Your Digital ID will be invalid.

You voiced criticism of your new technocratic overlords? Then your Digital ID is invalid.

If governments are ever allowed to succeed in rolling out digital ID—even if it's through the back door via under-16 social media bans—we will find ourselves living in a giant open-air digital prison, from which it will be virtually impossible to ever escape.

But they can only succeed if humanity complies with their agenda. DO NOT COMPLY.

[Basil the Great @BasilTheGreat]

🚨BREAKING: UK GOVERNMENT TO TAKE CONTROL OF YOUTUBE ALGORITHM

This is pure authoritarianism

Keir Starmer's/Andy Burnham's Government is set to control the YouTube algorithm by LAW stipulating that they must push "APPROVED CONTENT" to UK Citizens

And independent voices who criticise the government will be pushed to the back of the queue making it harder for people to find

YouTube has acknowledged this is happening

This must be stopped

[Kat A 🌸 @SaiKate108]

‘It’s not fortification. It’s contamination.’

The UK is forcing folic acid, a synthetic drug into the entire flour supply - without anyone’s consent.

This is the same chemical the NIH warns cancer patients not to take.

@ClareCraigPath has shown it more than doubles the risk of prostate cancer.

They scream about rising cancer rates yet deliberately poison the food supply.

Make it make sense.

Here is the petition calling for a parliamentary debate.

https://t.co/63BxLuuUe1

[AndyMac @Andymac252]

@Sorelle_Arduino Men don't take the trash out, topless.
She wants to force people to entertain her kink for flashing her bits in public.
Put a tshirt on like everyone else.

[AndyMac @Andymac252]

@MohammadRahid0 @daveatherton You probably rub shoulders with the lads that did it, Mohammed.
Admit it, son 🤣

[AndyMac @Andymac252]

@BGatesIsaPyscho What is he watching?

[ETHICAL APPROACH UK @EthicalApproach]

Very often, I am asked about my motivation. I therefore think it appropriate, now, to set it out here, plainly.

I have no desire to fight institutions. I simply refuse to pretend that what appears wrong is right.

Whether I am liked is of no consequence to me. Whether others agree with me is also of no consequence. Whether the questions I ask are inconvenient is of no consequence either.

When documentary evidence raises serious questions affecting the public, those questions ought to be asked and I will ask them.

If evidence disproves my conclusions, I shall alter them. If it strengthens them, then I shall continue.

I seek neither victory nor applause. Only that truth should prevail over authority.

My personal goal, ultimately, is to step away and never return.

[Alan D Miller @alanvibe]

Make your voice heard

https://t.co/0v1dIWqp8j