Friday, 11 December 2020

Coronavirus mRNA BNT162B2 Vaccine ingredients



Pfizer signed a deal worth up to $750 million with BioNTech in March 2020 to co-develop a potential vaccine.

According to the Federal Drug Agency (FDA), the Covid19 mRNA BNT162B2 is an “investigative mRNA treatment for the prevention of Covid 19.”

mRNA = Messenger Ribonucleic acid - “to date there have been no mRNA vaccines licensed for use in humans.”

The UK Government state, "There is a small chance you might still get coronavirus even if you have the vaccine."

The ingredients of the Covid19 mRNA BNT162B2 vaccine are:

Active substance
BNT162b2 RNA
“A type of genetic molecule taken from monkeys that have the virus, it causes cells to manufacture the big “spike” protein of the coronavirus, which the pathogen uses to glom onto a person’s cells and gain entry. The body reacts to this "possibly" leaving you immunized and ready to repel the full virus.”

ALC-0315 – Made up of lipids (fatty acids) including:

Hydroxybutyl acrylate - Brief Profile - ECHA (europa.eu)

According to the classification provided by companies to ECHA in REACH registrations this substance is harmful if swallowed, causes serious eye damage, causes skin irritation and may cause an allergic skin reaction. Additionally, the classification provided by companies to ECHA in CLP notifications identifies that this substance is harmful in contact with skin, is harmful if inhaled and may cause respiratory irritation.

Azanediyl = Derived from Ammonia

Hexane = Derived from Gasoline

Hexyldecanoate = Substance Information - ECHA (europa.eu)
Substances predicted as likely to meet criteria for category 1A or 1B carcinogenicity, mutagenicity, or reproductive toxicity.

ALC-0159 – Made up of lipids (fatty acids) including:

Polyethylene glycol = Laxative

Ditetradecylacetamide

Distearoyl

Glycero

Phosphocholine= A molecule found, for example, in lecithin .

And also:

Cholesterol = blood fat

Potassium Chloride = Potassium Salt

Sodium Chloride = Salt

Sucrose = Sugar


Thursday, 19 November 2020

How many people in Merseyside have been fined for not wearing a mask (in a relevant place)?

Source: Merseyside Police

Portuguese Appeals Court Deems PCR tests unreliable

A Portuguese Appeals Court recently deemed PCR tests unreliable and declared the quarantine of people unlawful.
On November 11th 2020 a Portuguese appeal court ruled against the Azores Regional Health Authority concerning a lower court decision to declare unlawful the quarantining of four persons.

Of these, one had tested positive for Covid using a PCR test; the other three were deemed to have undergone a high risk of exposure.


The Azores Regional Health Authority decided that all four were infectious and a health hazard, which required that they go into isolation. The lower court had ruled against the Health Authority, and the appeal court upheld that ruling with arguments that explicitly endorse the scientific case for the lack of reliability of the PCR tests The court’s main points are as follows: A medical diagnosis is a medical act that only a physician is legally qualified to undertake and for which such physician will be solely and entirely responsible. No other person or institution, including government agencies or the courts, has such an authority. It is not up to the Azores Regional Health Authority to declare someone ill, or a health hazard.

Only a physician can do that. No one can be declared ill or a health hazard by decree or law, nor as the automatic, administrative consequence of the outcome of a laboratory test, no matter which.

From the above, the court concludes that “if carried out with no prior medical observation of the patient, with no participation of a physician certified by the Ordem dos Médicos who would have assessed symptoms and requested the tests/exams deemed necessary, any act of diagnosis, or any act of public health vigilance (such as determining whether a viral infection or a high risk of exposure exist, which the aforementioned concepts subsume) will violate [a number of laws and regulations] and may configure a crime of usurpação de funções [unlawful practice of a profession] in the case said acts are carried out or dictated by someone devoid of the capacity to do so.”

In addition, the court rules that the Azores Health Authority violated article 6 of the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights, as it failed to provide evidence that the informed consent mandated by said Declaration had been given by the PCR-tested persons who had complained against the forced quarantine measures imposed on them. From the facts presented to the court, it concluded that no evidentiary proof or even indication existed that the four persons in question had been seen by a doctor, either before or after undertaking the test.

The court concluded that no evidentiary proof or even indication existed that the four persons in question had been seen by a doctor, either before or after undertaking the test.

“Based on the currently available scientific evidence this test [the RT-PCR test] is in and of itself unable to determine beyond reasonable doubt that positivity in fact corresponds to infection by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, for several reasons, among which two are paramount (to which one would need to add the issue of the gold standard, which, due to that issue’s specificity, will not be considered here): the test’s reliability depends on the number of cycles used; the test’s reliability depends on the viral load present.”

Citing Jaafar et al. (2020; https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciaa1491) the court concludes that
“if someone is tested by PCR as positive when a threshold of 35 cycles or higher is used (as is the rule in most laboratories in Europe and the US), the probability that said person is infected is <3%, and the probability that said result is a false positive is 97%.”

The court further notes that the cycle threshold used for the PCR tests currently being made in Portugal is unknown.

Citing Surkova et al. (2020; https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PIIS2213-2600(20)30453-7/fulltext), the court further states that any diagnostic test must be interpreted in the context of the actual probability of disease as assessed prior to the undertaking of the test itself, and expresses the opinion that
in the current epidemiological landscape of the United Kingdom, the likelihood is increasing that Covid 19 tests are returning false positives, with major implications for individuals, the health system and society”.
The court’s summary of the case to rule against the Regional Health Authority’s appeal reads as follows:

“Given how much scientific doubt exists — as voiced by experts, i.e., those who matter — about the reliability of the PCR tests, given the lack of information concerning the tests’ analytical parameters, and in the absence of a physician’s diagnosis supporting the existence of infection or risk, there is no way this court would ever be able to determine whether C was indeed a carrier of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, or whether A, B and D had been at a high risk of exposure to it.”

Tuesday, 17 November 2020

PROTEST is NOT 'Anti Social Behaviour' and is NOT illegal nor unlawful.

In Liverpool City Centre recently, Merseyside Police put in place a 'dispersal order' under Section 35 of the Anti Social Behaviour and Policing Act 2014 which gives police officers and police community support traffic officers powers to direct people they suspect are causing or likely to cause crime, nuisance or anti-social behaviour to members of the public to leave a designated area.

The Police state that, "the order has been brought in following a gathering last weekend which was in contravention of the Coronavirus legislation. This order has been authorised in order to protect lives, prevent the spread of Coronavirus and keep people safe."

This is both illegal and unlawful. Contravening Coronavirus legislation is not Anti-Social behaviour.

"Anti-Social behaviour" is defined in the Anti Social Behaviour and Policing Act 2014 as "conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person"

Protesting peacefully, or using a megaphone, chanting or playing music and singing is also NOT Anti-Social behaviour.

Justice Holland, a judge in the High Court in 2007 stated that: “Protest is lawful; the use of a megaphone as an adjunct of lawful protest is itself lawful. The starting point is unfettered freedom to engage in so much amplified protest as is neither intimidating or harassing.” HLS Group Plc v SHAC 2007 WL 919475 [2007] EWHC 522 (QB) QBD.

Section 34 (3) of the Anti-Social Behaviour and Policing Act 2014 clearly states, "In deciding whether to give such an authorisation an officer must have particular regard to the rights of freedom of expression and freedom of assembly set out in articles 10 and 11 of the Convention."

A number of people were fined, warned and arrested on Sat 14th November for simply being in the area and filming what was happening. This is not Anti-Social behaviour.

If anything, the behaviour of Police Officers, was clearly Anti-Social behaviour and the gatherings of hundreds of Police Officers was certainly hypocritical considering their comments about members of the public gathering to engage in lawful protest.

Tuesday, 10 November 2020

Indoor gyms, fitness studios, indoor sports facilities and other indoor leisure centres for supervised activities for children ARE LEGALLY EXEMPT! from having to close

Police have been going around gyms, fitness studios etc that have refused to close, threatening them with fines that will double on each visit.

However, I notice that Police have been citing "Section 16(1) of the The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) (No. 4) Regulations 2020 which states that "A person responsible for carrying on a restricted business, or providing a restricted service, must cease to carry on that business or provide that service."

The trouble is, that Section 16(3) of the regulations states this, "The requirement in paragraph 16(1)—

(a)does not apply to any facilities provided in criminal justice accommodation, and

(b)is subject to the exceptions in regulation 17(6) and (8).

So, we look at the exceptions in regulation 17(6):

17(6) Regulation 16(1) does not prevent the use of—

(f) indoor gyms, fitness studios, indoor sports facilities and other indoor leisure centres for supervised activities for children

Check it out for yourself. LINK

Saturday, 7 November 2020

Police harass us for walking along the street.

The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) (No. 4) Regulations 2020 state that, being outside of the home for recreation is a reasonable excuse.

Today I was out of my home for work and recreation. Taking photographs and video for my YouTube channel, Facebook page and blog, on a recreational visit to the Albert Dock in Liverpool.

On arriving in the City, I came across a march/protest.
Liverpool Freedom march - 7th November 2020

This is what happened next.



Thursday, 3 September 2020

Police Employees and Public Servants sacked, or charged or convicted of an offence 2009 to 2020 - V39

The latest list of Police Employees and Public Servants sacked, charged or convicted of an offence 2009 to 2020, Version 39.

LINK: Police Officers charged/convicted of an offence 2009 to 2020 Version 39






Tuesday, 10 March 2020

Police Employees and Public Servants sacked, or charged or convicted of an offence 2009 to 2020 - V38

Here's the latest list of Police Employees and Public Servants sacked, or charged or convicted of an offence 2009 to 2019, Version 38. Updated and with 60 new entries.

LINK: Police Officers charged/convicted of an offence 2009 to 2019 Version 38




Thursday, 5 September 2019

Police Employees and Public Servants sacked, or charged or convicted of an offence 2009 to 2019 - V37


Here's the latest list of Police Employees and Public Servants sacked, or charged or convicted of an offence 2009 to 2019. Version 37.


LINK: Police Officers charged/convicted of an offence 2009 to 2019 Version 37


Wednesday, 13 March 2019

Police Employees and Public Servants sacked, or charged or convicted of an offence 2009 to 2019 - V36


Here's the latest list of Police Employees and Public Servants sacked, or charged or convicted of an offence 2009 to 2019. Version 36.

PLEASE - only share this original version. DO NOT edit or change this document in any way. I do not consent to any public use of my work, unless in this original state.

LINK: Police Officers charged/convicted of an offence 2009 to 2019 Version 36











Thursday, 24 January 2019

Police Employees and Public Servants sacked, or charged or convicted of an offence 2009 to 2019


Here's the latest list of Police Employees and Public Servants sacked, or charged or convicted of an offence 2009 to 2098. Version 35.

LINK: Police Officers charged/convicted of an offence 2009 to 2019 Version 35








Tuesday, 7 August 2018

Police Employees and Public Servants sacked, or charged or convicted of an offence 2009 to 2018


Here's the latest list of Police Employees and Public Servants sacked, or charged or convicted of an offence 2009 to 2018. Version 34.

LINK: Police Officers charged/convicted of an offence 2009 to 2018 Version 34







Tuesday, 29 August 2017

Police Employees and Public Servants sacked, or charged or convicted of an offence 2009 to 2017


Here's the latest list of Police Employees and Public Servants sacked, or charged or convicted of an offence 2009 to 2017. Version 33.

LINK: Police Officers charged/convicted of an offence 2009 to 2017 Version 33






Monday, 26 June 2017

R.I.P Councillor Sammy Lee

I am so sorry to hear of the passing of Sammy Lee. Sammy was my local Councillor from the year 2000, until Knowsley Council decided to get rid of the Longview ward.

Sammy was an old school Councillor, the best kind, and one of the only Councillors who would actually have a reasonable and sensible discussion with me, rather than the ones now, who just stare at you and have a pre-conceived (wrong) opinion.


Here he is talking to me in 2013, calling me nuts and crackers. Sammy called me many names, but our discussions were never heated or aggressive because there was a mutual respect.



Sammy knew what I was about, and knew many of my views. Many views that we agreed on, some that we never, but he'd always take the time to chat, every time we crossed paths.

I wish our local Councillors nowadays were like Sammy, sadly they are not. I never see my local Councillors anymore, when I do it's always a hostile environment.

The last time I spoke to Sammy was caught on video strangely enough, by the Knowsley Council leader Andy Moorehead. Sammy was in very poor health at the time, but still took the time to have a chat with me. Andy Moorehead says he filmed us because he was worried about Sammy's safety when talking to me, a resident he had known for 20 years or so. I think that says more about Moorehead, than me.



Sammy will be sorely missed. I'll miss our chats and discussions. Deepest sympathy to all Sammy's family and friends.

Rest in peace mate x

Saturday, 24 June 2017

The bulllying double standards of Merseyside Police and Knowsley Council

Knowsley Council Leader Andy Moorehead seems to think it's perfectly okay to film local residents from behind his office curtains, when he really should have been working on Council business. You know, the usual destruction of 51% of Knowsley's greenbelt, and figuring out how to save all of their skins from bankruptcy.

LINK to video

But when he is filmed at a local election count standing by Knowsley MP George Howarth, he gets Police to back him up, and they do. Even though they haven't got a leg to stand on, and no law to support their oppressive view, they try their best to bully, provoke and intimidate. But they end up looking rather silly.






Monday, 12 June 2017

Constitutional law on hung parliaments

"If she cannot get her Queen’s Speech through Parliament at the first attempt – constitutional law makes Jeremy Corbyn the Prime Minister by default, without the need for him to do the same."

In a 2015 article on the law site Head of Legal, Carl Gardiner looked in detail at constitutional law, how it applied in those four examples and how it would apply to a hung Parliament in 2015. For the detailed legal analysis, read the full article – but his examples and key conclusions are:


1924: then-leader Ramsay MacDonald was immediately invited by the king to form a minority Labour government when the Tories – the largest single party – could not pass its King’s Speech. MacDonald did not have to seek a coalition or demonstrate a functional majority

1929: MacDonald was again invited to be PM, even though Labour had won only 287 of the then-615 parliamentary seats, after Tory PM Baldwin resigned upon being unable to command a Commons majority. Again, MacDonald did not have to demonstrate a functioning majority

1974: Harold Wilson was invited by the queen to form a government after Edward Heath’s attempts to agree a coalition with the Liberals failed. He immediately formed a minority government in spite of stating firmly that he would not seek nor enter any coalition

2010: Then-PM Gordon Brown resigned immediately it became clear that he could not command a Commons majority, even though David Cameron had not yet agreed a coalition with the LibDems’ Nick Clegg. The coalition gave Cameron a functioning majority – but before the deal with the LibDems was finalised, he was summoned to the Palace ‘as a matter of course’.



Saturday, 3 June 2017

List of Police Officers and other Public servants charged and/or convicted of a criminal offence 2009 to 2017 - V32

Here's the latest list of Police Employees and Public Servants sacked, or charged or convicted of an offence 2009 to 2017. Version 32.

LINK: Police Officers charged/convicted of an offence 2009 to 2017 Version 32






Sunday, 15 January 2017

List of Police Officers and other Public servants charged and/or convicted of a criminal offence 2009 to 2016 - V31

Here's the latest list of Police Employees and Public Servants sacked, or charged or convicted of an offence 2009 to 2016. Version 31.

LINK: Police Officers charged/convicted of an offence 2009 to 2016 Version 31





Wednesday, 21 December 2016

Knowsley Council Meeting - 14th Dec 2016

The Knowsley Council meeting on 14th Dec 2016.



Highlights include:

Lib Dem Ian Smith opposing the use of 'fixed term tenancies' for social housing, whilst Labour's Graham Morgan berates him for this because Cllr Smith was against the building of new homes on the greenbelt?? (relevant how?)

Knowsley Council don't have any Social Housing, it's owned by KHT.

Cllr O'Keefe moves a 'Healthy weight declaration', and Council leader Andy Moorehead seconds the motion with a politically incorrect comment that he "puts his full weight behind it."

That's a lot of weight then, is my politically incorrect response. :-)

Cllr Smith against the additional position to assign a Cabinet Member Special Responsibility Allowance (i.e. 1.5 x Basic Allowance) pro rata until the end of the current municipal year.

Council leader Andy Moorehead says Cllr Smith is being incongruous and the Knowsley Lib Dem party is crass.

Cllr Murphy accuses Cllr Cashman of not "understanding City Regions"

Cllr Cashman ask the leader for an update on the Prescot fire in Carr Lane, but he gets heckled by Labour Councillors when he tries to ask a supplementary question.

The arrogance of Cllr Morgan, when he states that "over the next four years, this Council will deliver more than 700 new homes......", "am I going slow enough for you (Cllr Cashman)?"

First off, the Council are NOT building any homes, ALL these new homes are being built by PRIVATE companies.

The Lib Dems are against building homes on the greenbelt, and yet the Labour response to this is to try and make the issue about 'vulnerable children'. A bit of emotional blackmail I'd say.

"The building of houses on the greenbelt will bring in a million pounds a year on Council tax, of which we will spend on vulnerable children"

Yes, whatever.

Cllr McGlashan seems to be a professional heckler, and it seems the majority of Labour Councillors will use every opportunity to have a go at Cllr Cashman and Knowsley Lib Dems.

The DISRUPTIVE behaviour of Labour Councillors, who heckle and intimidate Lib Dem Councillors is astonishing, when you consider that residents have been BANNED from attending meetings for much less.

Tuesday, 15 November 2016

April 1990 - Longview Labour Club Memories - "Rock n Roll" Night



Full length video of the "Rock n Roll"' night at the Longy Labour Club back on 25th April 1990.

With thanks to Richard Raisbeck for the video.

Sept 1989 - Longview Labour Club Memories - "Fancy Dress" Night



Full length video of the "Fancy Dress" Night back on the 16th Sept 1989.

With thanks to Richard Raisbeck for the video.

October 1988 - Longview Labour Club Memories - "Roaring Twenties" Night.



Full length video of the "Roaring Twenties" Night back on the 29th Oct 1988.

With thanks to Richard Raisbeck for the video.


June 1988 - Longview Labour Club Memories - "Glenn Miller" Night



Full length video of the "Glenn Miller"' night at the Longy Labour Club back on 19th June 1988.

With thanks to Richard Raisbeck for the video.

Tuesday, 6 September 2016

Knowsley residents protest over blacklisting and green space disposals.



On Mon 5th Sept, a group of local residents protested at the Knowsley Council meeting over plans to dispose of a number of green space sites in Knowsley for development, in addition to the 51% disposal of Knowsley's greenbelt.

The residents were also protesting over the permanent ban of six Knowsley Residents, who were banned for expressing their views over the greenbelt destruction at the Council meeting in Jan 2016.

Sunday, 7 August 2016

Merseyside Police Officer 2293 gets a bit hostile at the Knowsley Flower show.

At the Knowsley Flower show, watching the awards with a few friends, one who had a banner out that stated how Knowsley Council blacklists local residents for standing up for their beliefs, when we were approached by a Police Officer, who was quite nice at first. But then got a bit unfriendly when I opened my mouth.

Here's what happened anyway.