Won't Someone Save Us From The COVID-19 Inquiry?

As Scotty once said "I can't take it Captain!"

If I have to read, see or hear one more legacy media report about the monumental farce that is the UK's COVID-19 inquiry, I fear my brain will batter my soul to death. Why on Earth is anyone taking it seriously?

I'm starting to think millions of Brits have been hypnotised. Independent inquiry? Are you on acid?

Believing that the COVID-19 inquiry will reveal anything even remotely "real" is like trusting the outcome of internal police investigations into deaths in police custody. It is like asking Crippin to review food safety standards or requesting Tony Blair investigate war crimes. It is beyond ridiculous.

Of course it isn't an actual "inquiry!" It is a state cover-up and propaganda operation. As I recently discussed with Rick Munn on TNT radio, there is nothing of any value that will ever come out of it.

For a start, there is no such thing as an "independent" inquiry established under the the UK Inquiries Act (2005). That Act put paid to any vague hope of independent inquiries in the UK. It is a government cover-up and propaganda operation, run by the government for the government's benefit.

Under the 2005 Act the UK government establishes the inquiry, it sets the terms of reference for the inquiry and can change them whenever it likes; the government appoints the chair of the inquiry and the chair appoints the inquiry panel (counsel), as long as the government agrees; f the current crop don't toe the line, the government can dismiss and re-appoint a new chair and/or the panel whenever it chooses; the government can determine which witnesses are called, it can withhold funding for areas of "investigation" it doesn't like the look of; the government can shut down the inquiry if it is starting to look a bit tasty and the government has carte blanche to approve, amend and redact the final inquiry report prior to publication anyway.

The word "independent" is itself propaganda when it comes to the so-called "independent" UK COVID-19 inquiry. There is no such thing as an "independent" inquiry convened under the Inquiries Act. It precludes the possibility. That's why it was enacted.

Look who the government "appointed" chair of the inquiry? Hallett is seemingly one of the UK state's go-to cover up expert. It was Hallett who acted as the coroner for the 7/7 inquests, which were a staggering exercise in obfuscation. The Hallett led inquests, allegedly into the worst loss of life to purported terrorism in UK history, seemingly excluding more evidence than it actually examined.

Despite pronouncement of guilt having nothing to do with a coroners inquest, Hallett decided she would pronounce the guilt of the four alleged bombers regardless. While none of them were declared dead at the scenes, she immediately ruled out any possible investigation of their deaths because reasons.

So far, Perry Mason doesn't have much to worry about if the standard of questioning at the alleged "COVID-19 inquiry" is anything to go by. When the former chief advisor to the prime minister, Dominic Cummings was "questioned" at the "inquiry"—I can't even call it an inquiry anymore, its going to be "cover-up" from now on—there were apparently six shocking things that the "cover-up" supposedly discovered from him.

1. Boris Johnson doesn't care about old people

2. The Tories don't care about other vulnerable people either

3. Cabinet ministers were trying to stab each other in the back and Cummings was right in the thick of it

4. Johnson thought Cummings was a big-head

5. Cummings ignored the "lockdown rules" and couldn't care less

6. Cummings is a mysoginist

Tens of thousands of people died prematurely, and are still dying in their thousands every month, because of so-called policy decisions of Cummings and his cohort of useless plumbs—or so we are told. The cover-up apparently discovered that they are a bunch of petty, self-serving kakistocrats.

Go figure! This is like "discovering" water is wet. 

Yet in May 2021, at the Parliamentary joint Science and Technology Committee and Health and Social Care Committee hearing, Cummings testified to the following [go to 14:02:35]:

In March [2020] I started getting calls from various people saying these new mRNA vaccines could well smash the conventional wisdom. [. . .] People like Bill Gates and that kind of network were saying. [. . .] Essentially what happened is, [. . .] there is a network of people, Bill Gates type people, who were saying completely rethink the paradigm of how you do this.. What Bill Gates and people like that were saying to me and others in number 10 was you need to think of this much more like the classic programs of the past. [. . .] the Manhattan Project in WWII, the Apollo program.. But what Bill Gates and people were saying [. . .] was, the actual expected return on this is so high that even if does turn out to be all wasted billions it's still a good gamble [. . .] and that is what we did.

To be clear: the COVID-19 cover up panel had a man in-front of them, testifying under oath, who was not only a key figure in orchestrating the UK government's policy response to a supposed global pandemic but had previously admitted that the government's efforts were massively influenced by a gang of oligarchs and "that kind of network."

So, you would imagine that the UK cover-up might be at least mildly intrigued to know a bit more about this.

Nope! Not interested.

Off you trot Dominic. 

Which brings us to the cover-up show piece: Boris Johnson's cringe-worthy testimony. While stomach-churning, it revealed the true purpose of the UK government's "independent" COVID-19 cover-up. 

Once again, the whole episode of his alleged “grilling” was a charade that didn't ask him, or seek to understand, anything of any particular interest. The former PM was pitched a succession of soft-ball questions about a string of irrelevant issues.

For example, he was quizzed about so-called "PartyGate." Hugo Keith KC, counsel to the inquiry—effectively selected by the government to ask the government questions—suggested that the Johnson did not care about the rules. Johnson was free to pontificate on how the parties were misrepresented by the media and how he "really" did care about the rules. 

At no stage did any "counsel" at the cover-up ask anyone, like Cummings or Johnson, whey they weren't bothered about a supposedly lethal pandemic disease. It is as if the fact that they were evidently not in the least bit concerned about either contracting or transmitting a disease, which they all claimed to be lethal, was an line of inquiry worth exploring.

I don't know about you, but if I was interrogating these alleged "decision makers," I would definitely want to know why they didn't believe COVID-19 was a threat, either to themselves or their families. Especially seeing as these were the very people closest to the so-called "best scientific advice."

"Why didn't you believe the pandemic was real" seems like a blindingly obvious question to have asked. But we're talking about the UK government's official COVID-19 cover-up, so it wasn't.

The only thing that is potentially of any interest about the cover-up is Module 5 which is due to consider procurement. Given the extensive evidence of widespread government corruption, you never know, something worthwhile might come out of it, but I doubt it. There will probably be a couple of patsies hung out to dry. Matt Hancock, the former health secretary, whose extramarital affair and party-going exploits during lockdown demonstrated that he couldn't be arsed to pretend there was a pandemic either, looks like a firm favourite. 

Ultimately, what the UK government's subservient cover-up is really about is reinforcing the official narrative about, what was in reality, a pseudopandemic . It is propaganda attempting to justify the destruction wrought by the government’s own policies by claiming they were all necessary to "keep us safe."

We already know where it's heading. It is written in the cover-up's terms of reference. 

It aims to "produce a factual narrative," to identify "lessons to be learned" and, most crucially, "inform preparations for future pandemics." Despite thousands of years of human history suggesting that pandemics come along every century or so, that’s not true anymore. Now they come in clusters apparently. So this cover-up will be used to impose more biosecurity state restrictions on us when the next one is organised.

The chances of the cover-up ever seriously tackling key questions like why the government were allowing a network of international oligarchs to lead on policy decisions, or why no one in charge thought there was a real pandemic, or why they implemented a lockdown and social distancing regime that had absolutely no epidemiological basis at all, are nil. 

So far the questioning during the cover-up has practically asserted, without any offered rationale whatsoever, that the main identified "lesson to be learned" is that the government didn't lockdown hard or soon enough. Even some of the legacy media have started to wonder if the question about whether or not we should have locked down at all will ever be asked. 

Perhaps it will, but I think we all know what the answer will be in the final report. We should have locked down more, we should have suffered more restrictions, we should have shut more businesses, reduced hospital bed numbers even further, killed more people, made death registration even more opaque and adopted even tighter economic and behavioural controls. It is, after all, the UK government's cover-up. 

I guess my hope that I can somehow avoid any more of this drivel is a forlorn one. This thing could rumble on for years. What a monumental waste of time and taxpayers’ money?