Is the Freedom Movement Together?

From marches to media

On January 8^th 2022, British Health Secretary Sajid Javid visited Kings College Hospital in London and invited opinions from five nurses on the mandate of covid injections being imposed upon health care workers by him and his government. From behind him consultant anaesthetist Steve James spoke up to query the policy. The encounter was later broadcast by Sky TV.

This exchange of views came at the end of nearly two years of unprecedented worldwide censorship and propaganda. The UK government exercised strict controls over broadcasters through a combination of advertising revenue and its communications regulator, Ofcom. During this two year period, questions to government ministers on the subject of the unprecedented lockdown restrictions and medical mandates had been limited to carefully stage managed media briefings. Meaningful dissent had been largely eradicated from mainstream corporate news. Not only were such views not invited, they were not permitted and those who expressed them were smeared and sacked. In the NHS, this was the experience of Doctors Sam White, Mohammad Iqbal Adil, and David Cartland. Elsewhere emails showed that US chief medical advisor, Anthony Fauci, called for a 'devastating takedown,'of Great Barrington Declaration founders Professors Sunetra Gupta of Oxford and Jay Bhattacharya of Stanford who advocated focussed protection rather than lockdowns.

In this context it is curious that the Health Secretary would choose to invite possible opposing opinions, and that mainstream television news networks would broadcast them.

If we imagine the situation from Javid's point of view, we have to consider what advantage he may have sought to gain from posing his question. It was effectively a boss asking his staff what they thought of his idea to sack those who disagreed with him. Any genuine interest in staff opinions would have inspired such research prior to the imposition of a mandate. We are left to imagine how Javid and the five reticent nurses present would have fared had Steve James not appeared from stage right.

In the ensuing broadcast conversation James' apparently dissenting voice reinforces the prevailing narratives. The existence of covid and its infectiousness is affirmed by James saying he has had it and he goes on to discuss supposed evolving and adapting viral strains. Importantly, he raises in the public consciousness the notion that the injections already administered only “reduce transmission for a maximum of eight weeks.”

James argues that he does not require a vaccine because, as an ITU doctor, he has immunity due to exposure to the new variant. This is exposure that a terrified viewer would not wish to have or risk experiencing. Javid asserts that such naturally acquired immunity will wane, in response to which James logically concludes that “for protection, vaccination will be required for everybody every month.”

In his protestations James makes the case for ongoing and repeated vaccinations.

The strongest argument against a medical mandate is ethical -that of the freedom of the individual to choose what goes into their body. Freedom is predicated on the rights of the individual. The right to refuse medication “without disadvantage or prejudice,” is a foundation of the free and informed consent which one might expect to be at the forefront of the mind of a medical practitioner.

The fact that the mandate under discussion was for an apparently hastily concocted injection with no long term safety or fertility data also seems noteworthy. In the case of mRNA injections, the technology had been beset with hazards that had previously precluded its use on people. These were not the arguments that James presented in front of the television cameras and they remained largely unknown to the public.

Instead James argued that the science regarding the injections was “not strong enough” to justify the mandate, which implies that a legitimate argument for medical mandates exists where such strong science is to be found -which was the prevailing public perception of the covid injections. James' logistical argument about a supposedly evolving virus requiring monthly vaccination suggests a mandate would be acceptable if the government could meet demand or provide a longer lasting treatment. Such views emerged from within the questionable paradigm of a novel coronavirus that posed a serious threat to the public, but those views are outwith the bounds of informed consent. At no point in the Javid/James encounter were the public introduced to the idea that the injections were not necessary and potentially dangerous.

Usually in such public and televised meetings politicians seek to avoid being caught off guard, and those in close contact with ministers are carefully vetted. So it was no great surprise when I was informed that James had admitted that Javid had prior knowledge of his question. Subsequently, James raised the subject of his meeting with Javid in an Instagram post of August 22^nd 2022, writing, “some people still think it was fake and that MSM would only put up something like that if it was planned.” I asked,

“Did Javid know you were going to ask the question?” and “Why do you think your question was aired?”

James replied,

“I think the media knew that they couldn't all hold this false story forever and so Sky gained credibility for airing this. It must have got a lot of attention and sometimes that's all an editor cares about.”

This answer is confusing. What is the false story? James had not argued that anything was false when he met Javid. Did the evidence of the previous two years not demonstrate that the media could (with)hold any story? Did that evidence not demonstrate that the demands of public interest and of TV editors were of little consequence to what was and what was not aired? If the story in question was James' exchange with Javid, there was no story until the footage was aired. The question remains why was it aired when so much dissent was censored?

I asked again whether Javid knew in advance about James's question and again the simple word “no,” was not forthcoming.

Sajid Javid ended his conversation with Steve James by saying that “we take the very best advice,” before pointedly adding, “from the people that are vaccine experts,” with the apparent implication that James is not one. Again the question arises, why in that case, did Javid solicit his opinion?

This line of questioning may seem immaterial or overly cynical but the concern here is not so much with Steve James but with the reason for the encounter, its content, and its broadcast and subsequent implications. We are all aware that chance encounters occasionally happen and that people operate from different paradigms and lines of reasoning. To that knowledge base we can add the following context.

In March of 2020 the British public was informed that the Prime Minister, the Health Secretary, and the Prince of Wales, had all contracted the alleged novel coronavirus in the week that the country was asked to lockdown. The lockdown officially began on the 23^rd March. Charles returned a positive test on the 26th, with Johnson and Hancock reporting theirs the following day. This remarkable turn of events presented something of a publicity coup for advocates of the lockdown, reminding the public that nobody was immune from the much vaunted pestilence. Furthermore the Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, was admitted to St. Thomas Hospital in London and reported to be in intensive care. On April 12th, 2020 Johnson made a video statement asserting that “the NHS has saved my life, no question.” On May 2^nd, 2020 he told the Sun on Sunday newspaper that doctors had “prepared to announce his death as he battled coronavirus.” This does not appear to have been true. As Johnson made this comment in the public domain, investigative journalist Marcus J Ball was able to query it by FOI request. St Thomas Hospital confirmed that no preparations had been made to announce Johnson's death.

After Johnson became aware of Ball's investigation and St Thomas Hospital's FOI response, he described his illness as “really mild,” when talking to Esther McVey and Philip Davies of GB News in April 2022.

In a document dated 22^nd March 2020, (a few days before the beginning of the spate of illnesses among high profile british political figures), SAGE had discussed how “A substantial number of people still do not feel sufficiently personally threatened” and advised the government to “use media to increase sense of personal threat.”

From this document alone, it is clear that the public were being monitored and that it is possible that there were plans to manipulate their responses.

The year of 2021 had been punctuated by some of the largest demonstrations against government policy in living memory. Estimates of the numbers of people who wound through London to make visible their objections to the medical totalitarianism ran into millions. They were presumably representative of many more - including among the NHS workforce. Nurses and doctors were among those who marched and spoke out. Unlike with Javid's exchange with James, the media ignored or under-reported these seminal and enormous events.

By the end of 2021 it must have been clear to the government that its NHS covid injection mandate could not be practically enforced without causing severe damage to the service and ensuing public outrage. Was this the reason for Savid Javid's initiation of a discussion of the mandate in front of the television cameras? Had the decision already been made to pull back? Three weeks after Javid posed his question the revoking of the mandate was confirmed. An organisation called the Together Declaration claims credit for the success. Its campaign against the mandate began over Christmas 2021, a matter of days before Javid's appearance at Kings College hospital on January 7^th, 2022.

The vaccines continued to be administered. The University and College Admissions Service was still imposing a mandate for students applying for courses in nursing and social care as recently as November 2022. The website of the NHS100k group that opposed the mandate states, “We are sorry to hear that people are still experiencing discrimination or harassment based on vaccination status or that people are encountering job adverts requesting vaccination status.”

The huge marches in London were notable for the multiplicity of individual and otherwise unco-ordinated voices. They were populated by people from all walks of life who had been affected by lockdowns and who perceived the threat of an advancing tyranny. Many recognised the co-ordinating influences of the World Economic Forum, the World Health Organisation, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and this was reflected in the myriad home-made banners and placards. The purpose of the lockdowns was observed to be to drive people towards the injections.

The largest organisation to emerge from this cornucopia of non-conformity was the Together Declaration. It's original declaration, which amounted to an assertion of basic inalienable rights, amassed 210,000 signatures -which compares favourably with the Conservative Party's 150,000 members. The two most urgent considerations of the anti-lockdown marchers were the dangers of the vaccines and the supranational organisations mentioned above. These concerns are not taken seriously by the leader of the Together organisation Alan Miller who dismisses the WEF as an irrelevance and considers the problem with the vaccines to be solely that they were given to people who did not need them (-which is true to an extent but fails to consider any inherent or intended harms). This may explain why the WEF was not addressed by Together until, at an event to mark the organisation's first anniversary, boos greeted guest panellist Luke Johnson when he answered a question about the WEF from the audience, by saying “One of the risks for our side is that we go down the rabbit hole.” Together assuaged its core support by subsequently holding a discussion about the WEF in which attendees were reassured that the Great Reset plans would not be allowed to happen, despite that reset being ongoing for the previous two and a half years.

When challenged recently by Youtube channel Delivering Liberty, Together co-founder Alan Miller reacted by saying, “Who's been successful?” presumably in reference to an assumed victory over the vaccine mandate. This is a success Miller has claimed at Together events but if it was achieved by a resistance that predated the organisation, what achievements can Together claim? Its campaign to stop vaccination for children failed, as did an attempt to reinstate and compensate care home workers who were sacked for defying an injection mandate.

What kind of victory was there over the NHS injection mandate if the service continued to apply what NHS100k called 'discrimination or harassment based on vaccination status?' Was the withdrawal of the official mandate merely a release of pressure that took the impetus from the freedom movement whilst the injections continued to be administered?

Delivering Liberty was concerned that some voices were being excluded from Together's panels and discussions, and in particular those who saw the threat of a bigger agenda from the beginning of the lockdowns, such as Piers Corbyn. When pressed on why Corbyn was not included, Miller answered instructively in the first person, “I don't particularly want him,” before adding, “No-one's demanding in our groups...to have Piers.” This appears somewhat disingenuous as there have been a number of panelists and interviewees at Together events for which there will not have been great, or indeed any, demand. Together panelists are often chosen from the ranks of the political, journalistic, and academic circles that failed society so badly from 2020 onwards.

The riotous colour of the marches of the lockdown period which widely featured the bright yellow of the unmasked smiley face emoji, is being overtaken by the sombre black and white of Together placards and their less strident slogans. An illustrative example was a locally organised demonstration against LTNs in Wood Green, London, which was given the appearance of a Together event when Together placards were distributed and Miller made a speech through a PA system before the organisers. The organisers' placards and their direct slogan of 'No to LTNs' competed for attention with Together's less specific and informative “Save our Streets.”

The raw and unedited messaging of the crowds of marchers in London have also largely been replaced by the sanitised and Ofcom compliant soundbites of Miller, who seems to have become the media's chosen spokesperson for all things connected with the nascent freedom movement. Prior to the lockdowns Miller was a contributor to LBC, Huffington Post, Spiked and BBC London, media organisations that continue to distinguish themselves by observing state narratives. Notably, among other dubious stories, LBC reported a death from 'omicron' in Northampton when no such deaths had been recorded, and Spiked recently published an obvious hit piece on MP Andrew Bridgen who has spoken out about the dangers and corruption concerning the covid injections.

Along with numerous appearances on GB news, in 2022, Miller has appeared on BBC Radio 4 to discuss Low Traffic Neighbourhoods and had an article on the subject published in the Daily Telegraph (-both of which media organisations were recipients of funding from the Gates Foundation). Unlike those who address the vaccine harms or a wider agenda, the media considers him to be a safe guest.

We are left to consider the anomaly of the freedom movement’s largest organisation being led by someone who does not believe in what the freedom movement is fighting. It is a curiosity that such a person has become a spokesperson on the issues of concern. When it is considered that Together's co-founder Lesley Katon seems to share Millers' views on the Great Reset and the injections, it appears that this quirk applies to the two most influential people in the organisation (of which Steve James is an executive board member).

There may be an argument to be made that in order to avoid censorship and gain mainstream coverage and a wider audience Together's message has to be restrained or qualified but as previously stated the filter on the messaging is not one of tactics but of personal beliefs. As with the many millions who wore masks and accepted injections, state inculcated beliefs are a form of control.

The Together Declaration urges people to engage with the political machinery, encouraging members to write to the MPs who voted in overwhelming numbers for three lockdowns and who, in respect of covid injections, parrot the line, “safe and effective,” regardless of the balance of evidence. Such petitions and writing campaigns give the sense of something being done and divert energy and focus from other forms of resistance.

If, as many demonstrators in locked-down London believed, there is a reset underway and the government and political system is corrupted beyond redemption then Together operates exactly as such a government might wish its rebels to behave. It is a centralised structure that channels grass-roots opposition through the tried and trusted machinery of the state. Attention is shifted to the Parliamentary process and away from the Great Reset and Agenda 2030 where decisions are made outside that process. One of Together's slogans reads 'Take Back Democracy'- but from whom if the system is functional and there is no overarching influence or control?

If political machinery has been captured, what would be more effective, political engagement or non-compliance? Would our actions be different in a silent war than in a political dispute?

In conclusion, it's possible to read Javid's meeting with James as being used by government to begin a controlled demolition of the mandate policy in response to the resistance of the previous two years. Any credit for this claimed by Together would then be largely unmerited. This perspective casts Miller's response to criticism from Delivering Liberty in a different light,

“People can make their own minds up. Who's been successful? Who's winning things? Who's having an impact rather than throwing stones?”

When considering the scale of the lockdowns, the injections, and the reset, we must consider the possibility of controlled opposition. If we fail to do so then all that would be necessary for perpetrators of a sinister agenda would be to provide us with a second ring of clowns when we stop being entertained by the first. It has been said that the most effective disinformation is that which is mostly true. Who would believe in it otherwise? Similarly, any infiltration of protest groups will mostly be apparently helpful, although ultimately misleading. At this point it is worth calling to mind the experience of animal rights activists with the London Metropolitan police between 1987 and 2010. Police agents who infiltrated the activist group went so deep undercover that they entered long term relationships and even fathered children. One was described as 'going native,' after facilitating crimes for which activists were arrested.

If those are the lengths to which the state went with regards to animal rights activists we must consider what might be possible in the increasingly totalitarian post lockdown world where the stakes are considerably higher.