Miri AF

Massive missives and more

FB Fulminations

Risky business

Posted by Miri on September 29, 2020 at 10:25 AM

I've become fond of starting my posts with memable quotes, so I feel compelled to declare that not only is all the world a stage, but it is also all a rich man's trick...

People within "the truth movement" understand how reality is manipulated to extraordinary effect through false flags, crisis actors, psy-ops, propaganda, and generally an unrelenting campaign of mind-bending treachery and lies from the mass media and world's governments.

But what's harder to accept is that seeing through one level of illusion doesn't render us invincible against all others. There is no reason to believe the same strategies deployed in the mainstream aren't also being used to full and devastating effect within "the truth movement", because, well, why wouldn't they be? 

As all successful tyrannical forces in history have known, the best way to control the opposition is to lead it themselves, and to those ends, ALL significant anti-establishment movements are heavily infiltrated by the establishment. All of them. Obviously, that means the truth movement too, and pointing that fact out isn't "divisive" or "negative", it's vitally important, because eternal vigilance is the price of freedom, and that means being extremely vigilant about the truth movement and its "leaders", too. Because some of them, inevitably, are controlled intelligence assets sent in by the establishment to weaken and neutralise the enemy (us). They're not "on our side" and "fighting for the same thing" - they're liars and actors, master illusionists (not all masks are made of cloth), trying to trick and deceive, because as I said, that always happens in all anti-establishment movements. This was detailed to particularly brilliant effect in David McGowan's "Laurel Canyon", an expose of how intelligence agencies so successfully infiltrated and ultimately destroyed the 1960s anti-war movement in America (and, having clearly given away too many "tricks of the trade", McGowan died suddenly soon after writing it).


To these ends, I had a chat with Westminster borough council yesterday. I asked them for a copy of the risk assessment that was submitted and accepted for the protest in Trafalgar Square on Saturday 26th September. They informed me I would have to put my request in writing to the Metropolitan Police, which I have done. I have made a formal Freedom of Information request, and I have been instructed I will hear from them within 20 working days.

Why have I made this request? Because nothing about this adds up.

Most people, including me until recently, didn't really know what a risk assessment was, nor the conditions for receiving one and having it remain valid. So I shall attempt to explain. In the simplest terms, a risk assessment is a document that describes what the potential risks of an activity are and what controls will be put in place to mitigate those risks. So if you were organising, for instance, a party at a Students' Union, a risk might be "people getting drunk and falling over", with the potential consequence of that being "injury", so the controls in place to mitigate that risk could be, "trained first-aiders on site" and/or "a token system to limit number of drinks". The controls are not expected to eliminate risks completely, as that is impossible, but to sufficiently minimise them, and the controls put in place to do that have to be realistic and persuasive for the risk assessment to be accepted. So for the student party, if the control was, "ban alcohol from the event", that would likely not be accepted, as it isn't realistic the students would adhere to it. If the controls are unrealistic and the risk assessment is therefore not accepted, the event cannot go ahead legally. 

A crucial piece of information to know about contemporary risk assessments is that, due to a change in the law in early September, risk assessments pertaining to protests are required to be "Covid-secure". That is to say, the risk assessment for a protest must acknowledge Covid infection as a risk (if it doesn't, it won't be passed), and detail what controls are going to be put in place to minimise that risk. If this is not done, the risk assessment will not be accepted, and the event will not be able to go ahead legally. 

Therefore, if indeed the risk assessment for Saturday 26th September was passed (and I am told that it was), the organisers of the protest accepted in writing that Covid infection was a risk and agreed they would adhere to "Covid secure" measures to minimise this risk. These would typically involve social distancing and masks where social distancing is not possible. Someone within the council and/or police decided their controls were compelling and realistic enough to pass the risk assessment. 

Let me be clear on what I am saying: the organisers of this protest agreed, in a legally binding document, to apply "Covid secure" measures at the protest, and furthermore, someone in the council/police decided that, despite the fact the point of the event was to protest "Covid secure measures", and despite the fact a near-identical event had been broken up by the police a week before having made no efforts to adhere to these measures, it was nevertheless entirely likely and plausible this time the measures would be adhered to. 

Let me say it again: if the organisers hadn't agreed to adhere to Covid-secure measures and explained in persuasive detail exactly how they and the attendees would do so, the risk assessment wouldn't have been passed and so the event would not have been able to go ahead; it would have been blocked from even setting up. 

"Okay," You might say. "So they lied to get the risk assessment passed. So what? They didn't have a choice."

That may be true, but why weren't potential attendees all openly advised of this? That these were the conditions of the risk assessment being passed, and in order for it to remain valid, these measures had to be adhered to? Nobody was told this, either before or during the event, and they absolutely should have been, because a risk assessment isn't a passive document. It's not just passed, then that's it, you're home free. A risk assessment is an active document which can become voided at any time if the event doesn't comply with the terms of its risk assessment. 

So as soon as the event began and there were no attempts to observe "Covid secure" measures or to advise the crowd to, the risk assessment became voided and the event illegal - and THAT is why it was able to be broken up by the police. It certainly was not broken up because "they're afraid of the truth getting out". If that was so, they would have broken it up in the first ten minutes (or simply not passed the risk assessment in the first place). 

Can you see some problems with all this? Why did event organisers agree in writing to apply Covid secure measures, but not tell anyone attending this is what they had done? The conditions of the risk assessment should have been transparently communicated to all attendees, otherwise they end up unwittingly breaking the law and risking highly unpleasant confrontations with the police - which, surprise surprise, is exactly what ended up happening, just as it did on the 19th.

Furthermore, why did the council/police pass the risk assessment? What person or persons decided that an event specifically protesting Covid restrictions was nevertheless highly likely to adhere to them, bearing in mind that no previous anti-lockdown protest had ever even attempted to? Apparently, Piers Corbyn submitted the risk assessment. He is a high-profile "Covid denier" who has been arrested repeatedly for breaching Covid restrictions. Who in their right mind would therefore believe he was likely to adhere to said restrictions and advise 20,000 others to do so as well? And frankly, even if the crowd HAD wanted to observe social distancing, that would have been impossible for such a large crowd in a confined space like Trafalgar Square.

So, none of this makes any sense. While I'm not accusing anyone of anything (yet), I am asking crucial questions which would not appear to have any readily-available answers. If anyone can provide evidence-based answers to the following simple questions, I would greatly appreciate it:

1. Who was involved in completing the risk assessment?

2. What risks were identified?

3. What controls were described?

4. Who submitted it?

5. Who did they submit it to?

6. Who passed it?

7. Were the conditions of the risk assessment clearly communicated to attendees?

8. Were they reminded of these conditions throughout the event?

9. If they weren't, why weren't they?

10. Why did the police wait three hours, until 3 (:03!) before going in, when it was obvious in the first ten minutes "Covid secure" measures weren't being applied?

These are all crucial questions that we deserve answers to, and anyone who attacks me for daring to ask questions about an event that culminated in horrific and brutal violence (and yet more arrests, which I was promised on multiple occasions by multiple people "couldn't happen" because the Covid rules "aren't the law") needs to have a little think about who's side they're really on. If the organisers have nothing to hide, they will have no problem answering my questions, and they also won't have any problem with being questioned or scrutinised, because that is what you must welcome and expect if you put yourself out there so provocatively and prominently. 

These protests were splashed all over the front pages of all the major newspapers, and scores of people have been left deeply traumatised as a result of what they experienced, with at least 19 more known state dissidents now having their DNA on police file (the police will take this when you are arrested, consensually or otherwise). Such an event deserves scrutiny. We deserve answers. So, I'm not going to sit here meekly and say nothing about all the ENORMOUS unanswered questions hanging over this event because that's "divisive". I might as well not question the government if that's the mentality you'd like to promote, since that's "divisive" as well. Not wearing a mask is "divisive". Being anti-vax is "divisive". In short, standing for anything, ever, is divisive, and that includes having opinions that friends and allies don't agree with. If they're real friends, they'll respect your right to have a different view. If they attack and condemn you for raising legitimate queries and concerns, they're not. 

Nobody is above being questioned and held to account, because - one more meme for those at the back - the truth does not fear investigation. 

Categories: Conspiracy

Post a Comment


Oops, you forgot something.


The words you entered did not match the given text. Please try again.

You must be a member to comment on this page. Sign In or Register

1 Comment

Reply Mamoona
11:41 AM on September 29, 2020 
It's a free mason network.