News6 mins ago
Finally The 1922 Breaks Silence
38 Answers
Bound to rile those with Coviditus but here we go.
"I believe the real purpose of masks is social control - it's time to turn down the fear dial, writes GRAHAM BRADY, Chairman of the Tory 1922 Committee"
https:/
"I believe the real purpose of masks is social control - it's time to turn down the fear dial, writes GRAHAM BRADY, Chairman of the Tory 1922 Committee"
https:/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by youngmafbog. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
//I don't understand the remark about social control. Why would the government want to get people into masks? Just for the thrill of being in control?//
Who knows whether they get a thrill from it, but it's part of a wider strategy to maintain a level of fear and anxiety among the population. This strategy (as Mr Brady points out and I highlighted over a year ago) was promulgated by a nasty sounding group, who advised ministers that it was necessary to instil such fear in order to secure compliance, not only with face coverings but with all the other measures that have been introduced over the past sixteen months.
Mr Brady's reference to the "Stockholm Syndrome" is well placed. It is clear now that the purpose of face coverings is no longer highlighted as a genuine strategy to combat the virus, but as a way of securing comfort and confidence among people who may otherwise not go out. Well that wasn't the point of the legislation (nor of the continuing "guidance" now that the legislation has been ditched). I'm not in the business of providing comfort and confidence to others. If they don't want to go out they can stay in.
Mr Brady's article makes for very interesting reading, particularly in his succinct dissection of some of the principle restrictions that have been imposed:
"...when we could leave our homes, whether we could see our families, with whom we were allowed to have sex, or what kinds of sports we were permitted to play,..."
And some of the responses to questions of other politicians he has posed:
"When I asked a Health Minister in the Commons how she could justify banning healthy activities such as golf, tennis or bowls, she actually replied that while those activities were indeed safe, if we ‘let people do those things, they might think they can do other things too’."
No, Mr Brady is not a scientist (as far as I know). But he is a politician, the chairman of a group seeking to hold the government to account (the job of Her Majesty's opposition, who seem singularly unable to cope with that task). There is no doubt that the Covid restrictions are a massive exercise in government control, the likes of which this country has never seen (and should never see again, regardless of the circumstances). Mr Brady is right to question the motives of these continuing restrictions.
Who knows whether they get a thrill from it, but it's part of a wider strategy to maintain a level of fear and anxiety among the population. This strategy (as Mr Brady points out and I highlighted over a year ago) was promulgated by a nasty sounding group, who advised ministers that it was necessary to instil such fear in order to secure compliance, not only with face coverings but with all the other measures that have been introduced over the past sixteen months.
Mr Brady's reference to the "Stockholm Syndrome" is well placed. It is clear now that the purpose of face coverings is no longer highlighted as a genuine strategy to combat the virus, but as a way of securing comfort and confidence among people who may otherwise not go out. Well that wasn't the point of the legislation (nor of the continuing "guidance" now that the legislation has been ditched). I'm not in the business of providing comfort and confidence to others. If they don't want to go out they can stay in.
Mr Brady's article makes for very interesting reading, particularly in his succinct dissection of some of the principle restrictions that have been imposed:
"...when we could leave our homes, whether we could see our families, with whom we were allowed to have sex, or what kinds of sports we were permitted to play,..."
And some of the responses to questions of other politicians he has posed:
"When I asked a Health Minister in the Commons how she could justify banning healthy activities such as golf, tennis or bowls, she actually replied that while those activities were indeed safe, if we ‘let people do those things, they might think they can do other things too’."
No, Mr Brady is not a scientist (as far as I know). But he is a politician, the chairman of a group seeking to hold the government to account (the job of Her Majesty's opposition, who seem singularly unable to cope with that task). There is no doubt that the Covid restrictions are a massive exercise in government control, the likes of which this country has never seen (and should never see again, regardless of the circumstances). Mr Brady is right to question the motives of these continuing restrictions.
NJ, this country is full of social control. Speed limits, drink-driving and seat belt laws, attacking people on the streets, robbing people and their homes, having to pay taxes, and so it goes on. O don'tthink any of these are done to give gratification to the law-makers, they are supposedly necessary to keep society decent and stable. I think that is why mask-wearing is now recommended; it's considered to be in the public interest, and strongly so.
I don't think you can compare being told to restrict the speed you drive a car at or to desist from robbing people in their homes, with being told how many people you can invite into your house or who you can have sex with.
Wearing face coverings is not required to keep society safe and stable and the legislation to impose it (now thankfully ditched, even if only temporarily) was not properly debated in Parliament nor did it go through the conventional stages of Parliamentary approval. It was imposed under secondary legislation effectively by Ministerial diktat.
The population has been moulded to believe it must be protected from everything nasty by the State and that only the State can keep them safe. They are wrong in that belief on two counts: firstly the State cannot protect them from everything (least of all lethal viruses) and secondly the State is very often the last organisation you should turn to for help.
It is because of this belief (mainly built on the climate of fear and anxiety it has managed to instil) that the government has managed to get away with imposing so many confusing and conflicting regulations on almost every aspect of people's lives. That's not what governments in the UK are elected to do.
Wearing face coverings is not required to keep society safe and stable and the legislation to impose it (now thankfully ditched, even if only temporarily) was not properly debated in Parliament nor did it go through the conventional stages of Parliamentary approval. It was imposed under secondary legislation effectively by Ministerial diktat.
The population has been moulded to believe it must be protected from everything nasty by the State and that only the State can keep them safe. They are wrong in that belief on two counts: firstly the State cannot protect them from everything (least of all lethal viruses) and secondly the State is very often the last organisation you should turn to for help.
It is because of this belief (mainly built on the climate of fear and anxiety it has managed to instil) that the government has managed to get away with imposing so many confusing and conflicting regulations on almost every aspect of people's lives. That's not what governments in the UK are elected to do.
//A very telling remark, one which is symptomatic of the approach of the 'authorities' to many aspects of life today.//
Quite so, jd. Many of the population have gained the "Continental" mindset over the last year. In the UK everything is permitted unless it is specifically prohibited by law In many mainland European countries many things are prohibited unless specifically sanctioned by the State. Time and again over the last year I have heard the question "Are we allowed to do (x, y or z)?" when previously x, y and z were everyday activities. It is a disgraceful state of affairs where people have been browbeaten into having to manipulate a huge array of legislation which controls their every move.
Quite so, jd. Many of the population have gained the "Continental" mindset over the last year. In the UK everything is permitted unless it is specifically prohibited by law In many mainland European countries many things are prohibited unless specifically sanctioned by the State. Time and again over the last year I have heard the question "Are we allowed to do (x, y or z)?" when previously x, y and z were everyday activities. It is a disgraceful state of affairs where people have been browbeaten into having to manipulate a huge array of legislation which controls their every move.
You can’t really argue sensibly that enforcing mask wearing is a tactic to subdue the population into … wearing masks.
That’s a circular argument.
I can only endorse what Atheist has said.
In fact, the government’s doing the exact opposite: relaxing the rules, largely as a result of pressure from people like Mr Brady. Right idea, wrong reason.
From tomorrow he’ll have to accuse shops etc of trying to “control” people.it’s all such nonsense.
What it is, if anything, is a hesitancy to get accused of going too far in freeing up, because some people want the restrictions to stay and some don’t. It has to be said that the former seem to be in a substantial majority.
That’s a circular argument.
I can only endorse what Atheist has said.
In fact, the government’s doing the exact opposite: relaxing the rules, largely as a result of pressure from people like Mr Brady. Right idea, wrong reason.
From tomorrow he’ll have to accuse shops etc of trying to “control” people.it’s all such nonsense.
What it is, if anything, is a hesitancy to get accused of going too far in freeing up, because some people want the restrictions to stay and some don’t. It has to be said that the former seem to be in a substantial majority.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank11 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles22 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles48 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles58 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles61 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.