正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

返回首页

NLC and TUC Strike Summary It started after fuel subsidy was removed. They're simply asking FG to increase the minimum wage from 30k and revert to old price of electricity. Or, reduce politicians salary to 30k from around 40million. Labour initially demanded 615k for living wage. FG offered 48k,...

TrendingEx's profile picture

Trending Explained

166,311 subscribers

136,461 次观看 • 2 年前 •via X (Twitter)

LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

10 条评论

Kamanu⚡️ 的头像
Kamanu⚡️2 年前

Which citizens are asking for Ajero arrest? Don’t bring curses on your generation for petty recognition

Big_pete 的头像
Big_pete2 年前

It’s no longer the word Yoruba ro’nu anymore we all have a common problem! At this point Igbo chee echiche dị ọcha!!! Hausa tunani mai tsabta!!! Nigerians THINK!!!!!

ferdinand 的头像
ferdinand2 年前

Before you fight for Nigeria you must first fight Nigerians

ini 的头像
ini2 年前

The same citizens he is fighting for are the same people calling for his arrest..Nigerians Wil always shock you

Dre.ceasar 的头像
Dre.ceasar2 年前

Obasanjo was not president in 2009

AKÉRÉLÉ īīī👩‍💻 的头像
AKÉRÉLÉ īīī👩‍💻2 年前

Those were not citizens!

King_Josh 的头像
King_Josh2 年前

Why Are Apc Supporters Joining the strike Ndí Iberibe

Tony Khah 的头像
Tony Khah2 年前

Obasanjo was not the president in 2009.

JoseMaria 的头像
JoseMaria2 年前

The real president has the solution to all these problems, but Mahmoud Yakubu sold our future to the drug baron.

Shegzy'd 的头像
Shegzy'd2 年前

Calling for his arrest imagine someone that's fighting for the poor to have a better living it's well only God knows when we the citizens will wake up

相关视频

Labour, Olawepo-Hashim Begin Democratic Renewal Movement Organised labour, civil society leaders, politicians, youth groups, women leaders, and pro-democracy advocates on Wednesday joined forces with Accord Party presidential candidate, Dr. Gbenga Olawepo-Hashim, as the Movement for Democratic Renewal (MDR) was formally launched in Abuja. The event drew hundreds of participants from across the country, united by a shared commitment to strengthening democratic institutions, promoting good governance, and expanding citizen participation. Speaking on behalf of the President of the Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC), Comrade Joe Ajaero, the Chairman of the NLC FCT Council, Dr. Steven Nabayi, said organised labour was working with Hashim because of his credibility, integrity, and long standing commitment to democratic practice in Nigeria. He said Labour recognised him as a partner in advancing democratic values and protecting workers’ interests. “We actually need such a movement because things are not going the right way in the country. #fy #fyp #viral #fyi
1:04

Labour, Olawepo-Hashim Begin Democratic Renewal Movement Organised labour, civil society leaders, politicians, youth groups, women leaders, and pro-democracy advocates on Wednesday joined forces with Accord Party presidential candidate, Dr. Gbenga Olawepo-Hashim, as the Movement for Democratic Renewal (MDR) was formally launched in Abuja. The event drew hundreds of participants from across the country, united by a shared commitment to strengthening democratic institutions, promoting good governance, and expanding citizen participation. Speaking on behalf of the President of the Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC), Comrade Joe Ajaero, the Chairman of the NLC FCT Council, Dr. Steven Nabayi, said organised labour was working with Hashim because of his credibility, integrity, and long standing commitment to democratic practice in Nigeria. He said Labour recognised him as a partner in advancing democratic values and protecting workers’ interests. “We actually need such a movement because things are not going the right way in the country. #fy #fyp #viral #fyi

Dr. Gbenga Olawepo-Hashim

402,688 次观看 • 2 个月前

No Apology For Forming Labour Party – NLC President The President of the Nigeria Labour Congress, Joe Ajaero, has said that they owe no one any apology for forming the Labour Party. In an interview with Channels Television on Tuesday night, Ajaero stated that the party was created to enable regular Nigerians to run for office and win. He also noted that even Peter Obi, the party's standard bearer, is not a member of any labour organisation. Ajaero said in part, “We don’t have any apology for forming the Labour Party. Historically, the Labour Party is organised and formed by trade unions all over the world and I have said elsewhere that from early 1918 down the line to 1945, Michael Imodu came up with the Labour Party. In 1964, Imodu and others formed a party. “Within that time when Adams Oshiomhole was contesting the governorship, the Labour Party aligned with those that formed the APC, AD, the ACN then, to sponsor Adams for him to have a joint ticket and it wasn’t a crime if the Labour Party decides to form an alliance with the other political parties. “Thereafter, we changed to and decided to have our own political party and today we’re not in alliance with any political party. And we don’t have an apology for forming a political party that will be beneficial to all the ordinary Nigerians …all the members of the Labour Party are not workers. “They’re not members of trade unions. People in the National Assembly and even the Presidency are not members of trade unions. The presidential candidate of the Labour Party is not in any way related to any Labour union. “Any Nigerian that wants to belong to the Labour Party is free. The reason we formed the Labour Party is that Nigerian workers under the minimum wage cannot buy form and contest elections under any of the political parties be it APC or PDP. “That’s why we say we must have our own political party where a messenger or clerk can contest elections and win. Even Okada riders are in the National Assembly today through the Labour Party. If anybody is having any doubt about it, the aim of forming the LP has been achieved.” --- Follow us for more breaking news and videos
2:37

No Apology For Forming Labour Party – NLC President The President of the Nigeria Labour Congress, Joe Ajaero, has said that they owe no one any apology for forming the Labour Party. In an interview with Channels Television on Tuesday night, Ajaero stated that the party was created to enable regular Nigerians to run for office and win. He also noted that even Peter Obi, the party's standard bearer, is not a member of any labour organisation. Ajaero said in part, “We don’t have any apology for forming the Labour Party. Historically, the Labour Party is organised and formed by trade unions all over the world and I have said elsewhere that from early 1918 down the line to 1945, Michael Imodu came up with the Labour Party. In 1964, Imodu and others formed a party. “Within that time when Adams Oshiomhole was contesting the governorship, the Labour Party aligned with those that formed the APC, AD, the ACN then, to sponsor Adams for him to have a joint ticket and it wasn’t a crime if the Labour Party decides to form an alliance with the other political parties. “Thereafter, we changed to and decided to have our own political party and today we’re not in alliance with any political party. And we don’t have an apology for forming a political party that will be beneficial to all the ordinary Nigerians …all the members of the Labour Party are not workers. “They’re not members of trade unions. People in the National Assembly and even the Presidency are not members of trade unions. The presidential candidate of the Labour Party is not in any way related to any Labour union. “Any Nigerian that wants to belong to the Labour Party is free. The reason we formed the Labour Party is that Nigerian workers under the minimum wage cannot buy form and contest elections under any of the political parties be it APC or PDP. “That’s why we say we must have our own political party where a messenger or clerk can contest elections and win. Even Okada riders are in the National Assembly today through the Labour Party. If anybody is having any doubt about it, the aim of forming the LP has been achieved.” --- Follow us for more breaking news and videos

Punch Newspapers

16,848 次观看 • 2 年前

I try not to wade in too much, but seeing as the House of Commons has just spent an hour misrepresenting my 2023 Legacy Act to protect Northern Ireland Veterans from endless prosecutions, I figured I should. Deeply dishonest stuff from Benn, and knowingly misleading statements from Labour front-benchers about the ECHR compliance of the Act - it was signed off by the then Attorney General who was a complete stickler for it. It wasn’t perfect, but it achieved its aims - the best of a bad set of options, and the last chance for families to find out what happened to their loved ones. Having no new evidence relies on prosecutors simply making different decisions. Public Prosecutors like Barra McGrory, who once represented Gerry Adams and Martin McGuiness. Or the current Attorney General - the Country’s highest law officer, who represented Gerry Adams. Appointed by Keir Starmer who was best mates with Phil Shiner, who did lawfare to my generation of veterans in Iraq and who now has a fraud conviction, after I reported him to the NCA. It’s pretty simple. This Labour Government have literally switched sides. Thats all. They and their ‘veterans’ should just own it.
0:42

I try not to wade in too much, but seeing as the House of Commons has just spent an hour misrepresenting my 2023 Legacy Act to protect Northern Ireland Veterans from endless prosecutions, I figured I should. Deeply dishonest stuff from Benn, and knowingly misleading statements from Labour front-benchers about the ECHR compliance of the Act - it was signed off by the then Attorney General who was a complete stickler for it. It wasn’t perfect, but it achieved its aims - the best of a bad set of options, and the last chance for families to find out what happened to their loved ones. Having no new evidence relies on prosecutors simply making different decisions. Public Prosecutors like Barra McGrory, who once represented Gerry Adams and Martin McGuiness. Or the current Attorney General - the Country’s highest law officer, who represented Gerry Adams. Appointed by Keir Starmer who was best mates with Phil Shiner, who did lawfare to my generation of veterans in Iraq and who now has a fraud conviction, after I reported him to the NCA. It’s pretty simple. This Labour Government have literally switched sides. Thats all. They and their ‘veterans’ should just own it.

Johnny Mercer

206,623 次观看 • 9 个月前

Taiwo Oyedele is trending because the Minister of Finance revealed that FG saved ₦15.8 trillion from subsidy removal since June 2023. As promised last month, the Minister outlined how it was spent: • FG: ₦5.4T (34%) • State Govt: ₦6.5T (41%) • LG: ₦3.9T (24%) He added that this money doesn’t reflect in the federal account as “Subsidy Savings” because it was generated from reforms. What he simply meant was, there was no cash deposit of ₦15.8T. But as the petrol subsidy was removed and the naira floated, FG stopped paying subsidies, while Customs, the Nigeria Revenue Service and oil related taxes generated more naira from the same dollar revenues. Because, before the naira was floated, $1 was valued at ₦460. After the floating reform, the same $1 became worth ₦1,004. So, if an agency had $1 million in dollar revenue, it was worth ₦460 million before the reform. After floating dollar became ₦1,004/$, that same $1 million automatically became worth ₦1.004 billion, an increase of ₦544 million in naira terms. The same applies to taxes and other government revenues collected in dollars; when converted at the new exchange rate, they generated more naira. This is what he meant by subsidy reform impact. This ₦15.8T is what was accrued from June 2023 to December 2025. Taiwo Oyedele added that, FG generated about ₦20.4T during this period from the reforms, extra taxes/revenue, and borrowing. But expenditure was at ₦30.64T. Of which ₦9.39T went to wages due to the minimum wage increment; ₦9.37T went for debts, while ₦6.5T was spent on infrastructure. Follow Trending Explained for daily explanations!
2:17

Taiwo Oyedele is trending because the Minister of Finance revealed that FG saved ₦15.8 trillion from subsidy removal since June 2023. As promised last month, the Minister outlined how it was spent: • FG: ₦5.4T (34%) • State Govt: ₦6.5T (41%) • LG: ₦3.9T (24%) He added that this money doesn’t reflect in the federal account as “Subsidy Savings” because it was generated from reforms. What he simply meant was, there was no cash deposit of ₦15.8T. But as the petrol subsidy was removed and the naira floated, FG stopped paying subsidies, while Customs, the Nigeria Revenue Service and oil related taxes generated more naira from the same dollar revenues. Because, before the naira was floated, $1 was valued at ₦460. After the floating reform, the same $1 became worth ₦1,004. So, if an agency had $1 million in dollar revenue, it was worth ₦460 million before the reform. After floating dollar became ₦1,004/$, that same $1 million automatically became worth ₦1.004 billion, an increase of ₦544 million in naira terms. The same applies to taxes and other government revenues collected in dollars; when converted at the new exchange rate, they generated more naira. This is what he meant by subsidy reform impact. This ₦15.8T is what was accrued from June 2023 to December 2025. Taiwo Oyedele added that, FG generated about ₦20.4T during this period from the reforms, extra taxes/revenue, and borrowing. But expenditure was at ₦30.64T. Of which ₦9.39T went to wages due to the minimum wage increment; ₦9.37T went for debts, while ₦6.5T was spent on infrastructure. Follow Trending Explained for daily explanations!

Trending Explained

27,048 次观看 • 4 天前

I would have a fit if I was told the problem on my car costs less than $10 but the dealer won’t sell it to me h less I buy the part it’s attached to for about $1000. It’s getting more and more expensive to service your own car, there are more rules you have to obey by. I think it could be marketing strategy to sell more of their in house service plans. When I bought a car last year they said that the maintenance can get expensive and they showed me an example of one. Then after they shocked me with the price they said there was a better alternative and offered their service plan which was the price of the one service they used as an example. I know people who went out and bought used luxury cars because they depreciated so much. But that smile went away when they were presented with an outrageous 4 figure bill for an oil change. I know many of us want to drive amazing cars, my advice to you is to do your research on the total cost of ownership not just the monthly payment and insurance.
0:40

I would have a fit if I was told the problem on my car costs less than $10 but the dealer won’t sell it to me h less I buy the part it’s attached to for about $1000. It’s getting more and more expensive to service your own car, there are more rules you have to obey by. I think it could be marketing strategy to sell more of their in house service plans. When I bought a car last year they said that the maintenance can get expensive and they showed me an example of one. Then after they shocked me with the price they said there was a better alternative and offered their service plan which was the price of the one service they used as an example. I know people who went out and bought used luxury cars because they depreciated so much. But that smile went away when they were presented with an outrageous 4 figure bill for an oil change. I know many of us want to drive amazing cars, my advice to you is to do your research on the total cost of ownership not just the monthly payment and insurance.

SonnyBoy🇺🇸

53,580 次观看 • 3 个月前

The key issue my brother is not the timeline, it is the dependency of many industries on Zimbabwean labour. Even with notice, replacing thousands of experienced, low-wage workers is not a simple matter of planning. These are people who have been the backbone of farms, restaurants, and construction sites for decades. It didn’t start today. Yes, restaurants in affluent areas may survive because they serve wealthy clients, but they will do so by raising prices to cover higher labour costs once local replacements demand more pay. Smaller restaurants, farms, and service providers that rely heavily on Zimbabwean workers will not have that luxury. The ripple effects go beyond one sector; they touch supply chains, food prices, and household budgets. This is not about sympathy; it is about understanding how labour markets actually function. The migrant labour question was on the table long before you were born. South Africa has always attracted migrant labour, much of it undocumented, to drive and accelerate its own economic development. The video below is from the 1970s, when the then South African Prime Minister, John Vorster, was explaining the very same issue. The reality is that migrant labour has been part of South Africa’s economic foundation for over a century, removing it suddenly is not economic reform, it will be economic self-harm.
2:51

The key issue my brother is not the timeline, it is the dependency of many industries on Zimbabwean labour. Even with notice, replacing thousands of experienced, low-wage workers is not a simple matter of planning. These are people who have been the backbone of farms, restaurants, and construction sites for decades. It didn’t start today. Yes, restaurants in affluent areas may survive because they serve wealthy clients, but they will do so by raising prices to cover higher labour costs once local replacements demand more pay. Smaller restaurants, farms, and service providers that rely heavily on Zimbabwean workers will not have that luxury. The ripple effects go beyond one sector; they touch supply chains, food prices, and household budgets. This is not about sympathy; it is about understanding how labour markets actually function. The migrant labour question was on the table long before you were born. South Africa has always attracted migrant labour, much of it undocumented, to drive and accelerate its own economic development. The video below is from the 1970s, when the then South African Prime Minister, John Vorster, was explaining the very same issue. The reality is that migrant labour has been part of South Africa’s economic foundation for over a century, removing it suddenly is not economic reform, it will be economic self-harm.

Hopewell Chin’ono

34,236 次观看 • 10 个月前

[Q]: Mr. Orbán has requested an exemption as it relates to oil that is coming from Russia. Is that something that you are prepared to do? President Trump: We're looking at it because it's very difficult for him to get the oil and gas from other areas. As you know, they don't have the advantage of having sea. It's a great country. It's a big country, but they don't have sea. They don't have the ports. And so they have a difficult problem. But when you look at what's happened with Europe, many of those countries, they don't have those problems. And they buy a lot of oil and gas from Russia. And as they know, I'm very disturbed by that because we're helping them and they're going and buying oil and gas from Russia. So that question could be really asked maybe more accurately if you talked about many European countries, not Hungary necessarily, because Hungary is in a different position. But many European countries are buying oil and gas from Russia. And they have been for years.
1:09

[Q]: Mr. Orbán has requested an exemption as it relates to oil that is coming from Russia. Is that something that you are prepared to do? President Trump: We're looking at it because it's very difficult for him to get the oil and gas from other areas. As you know, they don't have the advantage of having sea. It's a great country. It's a big country, but they don't have sea. They don't have the ports. And so they have a difficult problem. But when you look at what's happened with Europe, many of those countries, they don't have those problems. And they buy a lot of oil and gas from Russia. And as they know, I'm very disturbed by that because we're helping them and they're going and buying oil and gas from Russia. So that question could be really asked maybe more accurately if you talked about many European countries, not Hungary necessarily, because Hungary is in a different position. But many European countries are buying oil and gas from Russia. And they have been for years.

Anton Gerashchenko

211,377 次观看 • 9 个月前

🚨 Lowe’s Manager Called The Cops On Rapper Jim Jones All Because He Asked About a Wrong Price Jim Jones went to one of his favorite stores, Lowe’s, and was treated with complete disrespect. All he did was politely point out that the price tag on an item was incorrect and ask them to honor the right price. Instead of simply fixing the mistake, the staff became hostile. They threatened and rudely told him to leave, and then called the police on him. He stayed calm the entire time and handled the situation with composure, even though his first instinct was to react differently. But this wasn’t about one rude employee it was about terrible management and a complete lack of proper customer service training. Lowe’s needs to do better. When stores hire managers who don’t understand basic respect and customer service, situations like this become inevitable. No customer should ever have to fear being humiliated or having the police called on them just for asking a simple question about a price. Have you ever been treated this badly by a store over something so minor?
4:40

🚨 Lowe’s Manager Called The Cops On Rapper Jim Jones All Because He Asked About a Wrong Price Jim Jones went to one of his favorite stores, Lowe’s, and was treated with complete disrespect. All he did was politely point out that the price tag on an item was incorrect and ask them to honor the right price. Instead of simply fixing the mistake, the staff became hostile. They threatened and rudely told him to leave, and then called the police on him. He stayed calm the entire time and handled the situation with composure, even though his first instinct was to react differently. But this wasn’t about one rude employee it was about terrible management and a complete lack of proper customer service training. Lowe’s needs to do better. When stores hire managers who don’t understand basic respect and customer service, situations like this become inevitable. No customer should ever have to fear being humiliated or having the police called on them just for asking a simple question about a price. Have you ever been treated this badly by a store over something so minor?

i Expose Racists & Pedos

91,138 次观看 • 3 个月前

Hugh Grant, "Politicians mistakenly believe that their entire careers and fate rely on sucking up to the owners of tabloid newspapers" "But such was the pressure of the big newspaper barons on government, and such was the cowardice of government, that they found a tiny technical loophole in the legislative process" "Here we are 12 years later, having waited 12 years for a Labour government, Labour said to victims of press abuse with their terrible stories. Labour said: its ok guys, the Tories are awful, once we're here we'll take care of this" "Suddenly as the election loomed last year, dead silence from Labour" "Since Labour have been in government, absolutely nothing" "On the contrary, what we're now seeing is a repetition of what happened under the Blair government" "Where you have a Labour government sucking up to the very organisations that perpetrated these abuses in the first place" "You have Keir Starmer the Prime Minister writing articles for The Sun. Having lunch with Lachlan Murdoch last year. Hiring the ex Chief Operating Officer of News UK, the Murdoch news company in this country, as the most important communications civil servant in Number 10" "Arranging for Rupert Murdoch to be at the big state banquet for Trump. And having him sit right next to Morgan McSweeney who is the PM's chief of staff" "And it's pretty hard to stomach for the families who were promised so much by Labour" Tom Bradby, "Are you saying to me that the pledge that Keir Starmer made to you and other victims was unequivocal, and that you feel personally betrayed by the fact they have done nothing about it" Hugh Grant, "Yeah, all the victims feel personally betrayed by all the politicians and most depressingly by this Labour government" "Labour were marvellous in opposition" "Labour politicians were very supportive to these families who were really brave, and then when push came to shove, they made this decision clearly. And it's a mistaken decision" "That it's more important for them, for their political careers. For the sake of their party, their bl**dy party, that they make nice with the big newspaper barons, than they do what's right for these families" "And lets face it, for the country" "And what Hacked Off if here to do right now is to try and put pressure on this government on this prime minister to finally do something that will protect those families" "We're asking the PM to do something, to create a law, that makes newspapers obey basic standards of decency" "And in doing that to create a press in this country that we can be proud of, that we can rely on. Which is absolutely essential in this day and age" "I watch, we all watch, liberal democracies that we have happily enjoyed for 30, 40, 50 years, gradually start to disappear" "If you don't have a reliable press, you're in real trouble. You're left to the cowboys of social media"
5:43

Hugh Grant, "Politicians mistakenly believe that their entire careers and fate rely on sucking up to the owners of tabloid newspapers" "But such was the pressure of the big newspaper barons on government, and such was the cowardice of government, that they found a tiny technical loophole in the legislative process" "Here we are 12 years later, having waited 12 years for a Labour government, Labour said to victims of press abuse with their terrible stories. Labour said: its ok guys, the Tories are awful, once we're here we'll take care of this" "Suddenly as the election loomed last year, dead silence from Labour" "Since Labour have been in government, absolutely nothing" "On the contrary, what we're now seeing is a repetition of what happened under the Blair government" "Where you have a Labour government sucking up to the very organisations that perpetrated these abuses in the first place" "You have Keir Starmer the Prime Minister writing articles for The Sun. Having lunch with Lachlan Murdoch last year. Hiring the ex Chief Operating Officer of News UK, the Murdoch news company in this country, as the most important communications civil servant in Number 10" "Arranging for Rupert Murdoch to be at the big state banquet for Trump. And having him sit right next to Morgan McSweeney who is the PM's chief of staff" "And it's pretty hard to stomach for the families who were promised so much by Labour" Tom Bradby, "Are you saying to me that the pledge that Keir Starmer made to you and other victims was unequivocal, and that you feel personally betrayed by the fact they have done nothing about it" Hugh Grant, "Yeah, all the victims feel personally betrayed by all the politicians and most depressingly by this Labour government" "Labour were marvellous in opposition" "Labour politicians were very supportive to these families who were really brave, and then when push came to shove, they made this decision clearly. And it's a mistaken decision" "That it's more important for them, for their political careers. For the sake of their party, their bl**dy party, that they make nice with the big newspaper barons, than they do what's right for these families" "And lets face it, for the country" "And what Hacked Off if here to do right now is to try and put pressure on this government on this prime minister to finally do something that will protect those families" "We're asking the PM to do something, to create a law, that makes newspapers obey basic standards of decency" "And in doing that to create a press in this country that we can be proud of, that we can rely on. Which is absolutely essential in this day and age" "I watch, we all watch, liberal democracies that we have happily enjoyed for 30, 40, 50 years, gradually start to disappear" "If you don't have a reliable press, you're in real trouble. You're left to the cowboys of social media"

Farrukh

374,166 次观看 • 10 个月前

Former Labour Cllr Tom Butcher on why he's defected to the Green Party Tom Butcher "We have to be able to stand up and champion the causes - social justice, environmental challenges - that we face" "We need to be bold, loud, confident" "I found myself over a number of months disenfranchised by Labour, the direction of travel is not what I was expecting" "It wasn't what I stood on, or what the Labour Party promised" "I don't feel that m values have changed, I have stood true and consistent on those, it's the Labour Party that has changed" "When a leader like Zack comes along and brings that message of hope and champions those causes boldly, that's something I can get behind" "I'm glad we're bringing hope, trust and transparency back into politics" "Fighting for social justice and the environment, Labour isn't going far enough on those things" "In Swindon adult and children social care occupies 85% of the budget, that leaves 15% for the rest of services" "When you speak to the average person on the street who asks why they are paying more and more council tax and get less and less quality of services that is why" "Labour know that, they said that in the general election, they stood on the promise of a national care service and local government reforms, neither of those have been forthcoming" "Swindon needs to be in a much more sustainable position with their finances" "That isn't to say to remove the adult and child social care services. We need a more cost effective way to to deliver that" "A lot of those costs are high because of the privatisation within the adult care services. The council needs to go further and faster in removing themselves from having to use those privatised services so much"
3:37

Former Labour Cllr Tom Butcher on why he's defected to the Green Party Tom Butcher "We have to be able to stand up and champion the causes - social justice, environmental challenges - that we face" "We need to be bold, loud, confident" "I found myself over a number of months disenfranchised by Labour, the direction of travel is not what I was expecting" "It wasn't what I stood on, or what the Labour Party promised" "I don't feel that m values have changed, I have stood true and consistent on those, it's the Labour Party that has changed" "When a leader like Zack comes along and brings that message of hope and champions those causes boldly, that's something I can get behind" "I'm glad we're bringing hope, trust and transparency back into politics" "Fighting for social justice and the environment, Labour isn't going far enough on those things" "In Swindon adult and children social care occupies 85% of the budget, that leaves 15% for the rest of services" "When you speak to the average person on the street who asks why they are paying more and more council tax and get less and less quality of services that is why" "Labour know that, they said that in the general election, they stood on the promise of a national care service and local government reforms, neither of those have been forthcoming" "Swindon needs to be in a much more sustainable position with their finances" "That isn't to say to remove the adult and child social care services. We need a more cost effective way to to deliver that" "A lot of those costs are high because of the privatisation within the adult care services. The council needs to go further and faster in removing themselves from having to use those privatised services so much"

Farrukh

24,124 次观看 • 10 个月前

Left: Nigel Farage says Essex Police warned him that there was a plan to disrupt the Clacton by-election result, and that this was why he did not attend the count. Right: Yet, several days before the by-election, Farage sent Reform UK volunteers an invitation making clear that his plan was to watch the results from the party’s event at Great Oakley Airfield, and to speak from the main stage once the result was declared. I.e. there was no plan to attend the announcement of the results The invitation said: “The polls close on 13th August, and I'd love for you to join me at the Great Oakley Airfield to watch the results come in. Doors open at 11pm, with live music and big screens showing the results as they land. I'll speak from the main stage once the results are declared.” There is a striking discrepancy between the impression subsequently given and what Reform had told its supporters beforehand. And that brings me to a wider point. What is the difference between a Reform UK supporter who will continue to support Reform despite what appears to be this fairly blatant political sleight of hand, and a Labour voter who continues to support Labour despite the government's changes to terrorism legislation and the arrest of a Jewish daughter of a Holocaust survivor for a non-violent protest? If you are prepared to condemn dishonesty, authoritarianism or political double standards when they come from Reform UK, you should be prepared to condemn them when they come from Labour. Yet too often British politics has become tribal. Some Reform supporters appear willing to overlook behaviour they would condemn mercilessly if it came from Labour. And some Labour supporters appear equally willing to overlook behaviour from their own side that they would regard as outrageous if the Conservatives or Reform were responsible. That is not healthy democracy. And then there is Andy Burnham who can find time to talk about baps, but apparently not enough time to address the much more serious questions surrounding what the High Court initially found unlawful and what Lord Hain described in the House of Lords as "shameful". Labour promised change after 14 years of Conservative government which declined into chaos. What we need instead is a government that understands that the rule of law, civil liberties and democratic accountability matter even when defending them is politically inconvenient. And we need voters who apply the same standards to the politicians they support as they do to the politicians they oppose. Reform supporters should be willing to scrutinise Farage. Labour supporters should be willing to scrutinise Starmer, Cooper, Mahmood and now Burnham and his government. Conservative supporters should be willing to scrutinise the Conservatives. Blind loyalty isn't democracy. We need a much better quality of democracy in Britain - one where political tribalism does not become an excuse for dishonesty, hypocrisy or the erosion of civil liberties. And let’s not forget how this whole saga began. Nigel Farage failed to declare a £5 million donation from a foreign-based crypto billionaire. Had the donation simply been declared correctly in the first place, none of this would have happened. There would have been no need for the extraordinary by-election manoeuvring, and taxpayers would not have had to foot a bill of around £250,000 during a cost-of-living crisis for what increasingly looked like a political vanity project. Most importantly, there would have been no question of whether the by-election was being used to prevent or pre-empt scrutiny by the Parliamentary Standards Committee. For all the talk of standing up for ordinary taxpayers and demanding accountability from others, it is worth asking a very simple question: why wasn't the donation just declared properly in the first place?
1:27

Left: Nigel Farage says Essex Police warned him that there was a plan to disrupt the Clacton by-election result, and that this was why he did not attend the count. Right: Yet, several days before the by-election, Farage sent Reform UK volunteers an invitation making clear that his plan was to watch the results from the party’s event at Great Oakley Airfield, and to speak from the main stage once the result was declared. I.e. there was no plan to attend the announcement of the results The invitation said: “The polls close on 13th August, and I'd love for you to join me at the Great Oakley Airfield to watch the results come in. Doors open at 11pm, with live music and big screens showing the results as they land. I'll speak from the main stage once the results are declared.” There is a striking discrepancy between the impression subsequently given and what Reform had told its supporters beforehand. And that brings me to a wider point. What is the difference between a Reform UK supporter who will continue to support Reform despite what appears to be this fairly blatant political sleight of hand, and a Labour voter who continues to support Labour despite the government's changes to terrorism legislation and the arrest of a Jewish daughter of a Holocaust survivor for a non-violent protest? If you are prepared to condemn dishonesty, authoritarianism or political double standards when they come from Reform UK, you should be prepared to condemn them when they come from Labour. Yet too often British politics has become tribal. Some Reform supporters appear willing to overlook behaviour they would condemn mercilessly if it came from Labour. And some Labour supporters appear equally willing to overlook behaviour from their own side that they would regard as outrageous if the Conservatives or Reform were responsible. That is not healthy democracy. And then there is Andy Burnham who can find time to talk about baps, but apparently not enough time to address the much more serious questions surrounding what the High Court initially found unlawful and what Lord Hain described in the House of Lords as "shameful". Labour promised change after 14 years of Conservative government which declined into chaos. What we need instead is a government that understands that the rule of law, civil liberties and democratic accountability matter even when defending them is politically inconvenient. And we need voters who apply the same standards to the politicians they support as they do to the politicians they oppose. Reform supporters should be willing to scrutinise Farage. Labour supporters should be willing to scrutinise Starmer, Cooper, Mahmood and now Burnham and his government. Conservative supporters should be willing to scrutinise the Conservatives. Blind loyalty isn't democracy. We need a much better quality of democracy in Britain - one where political tribalism does not become an excuse for dishonesty, hypocrisy or the erosion of civil liberties. And let’s not forget how this whole saga began. Nigel Farage failed to declare a £5 million donation from a foreign-based crypto billionaire. Had the donation simply been declared correctly in the first place, none of this would have happened. There would have been no need for the extraordinary by-election manoeuvring, and taxpayers would not have had to foot a bill of around £250,000 during a cost-of-living crisis for what increasingly looked like a political vanity project. Most importantly, there would have been no question of whether the by-election was being used to prevent or pre-empt scrutiny by the Parliamentary Standards Committee. For all the talk of standing up for ordinary taxpayers and demanding accountability from others, it is worth asking a very simple question: why wasn't the donation just declared properly in the first place?

Farrukh

85,089 次观看 • 7 天前

The former RMT General Secretary Mick Lynch warned people about #KeirStarmer before the election. Most of the media laughed it off. Many in Labour dismissed him. But he understood exactly what Starmer represented. Lynch said Starmer’s Labour was managerial, not political. A party run by lawyers, advisors, and communications professionals rather than people rooted in labour history, trade unions, industry, or working-class communities. A party that believed in management, not representation. Stability, not change. Administration, not politics. He warned that if Starmer won, Labour would not govern as a movement, but as a management team. If anything, Lynch understated it. What we have seen is not a political Prime Minister but an administrative one. Government by briefing note, by focus group, by legal framing rather than political vision. A Labour Party reshaped from a political movement into something closer to a corporate structure with MPs. Under Starmer, Labour has been changed more fundamentally than even under Blair. Blair at least had a political project. Starmer’s project has been control. Centralise the party. Remove internal opposition. Sideline unions. Purge members. Control candidate selection. Control messaging. Control policy. The result is a Labour Party that is now barely recognisable as a working-class party, and barely recognisable even as a democratic political party. It behaves more like an administrative arm of the state than a movement representing the people. Alongside this has come something else that should worry anyone who cares about civil liberties. Expanding surveillance powers. Restrictions on protest. Speech laws framed as safety. Increasing police powers. More powers for the state, fewer rights for the citizen. All passed in the language of responsibility and stability. This is managerial politics. Not leadership, not representation, not democracy in the traditional labour movement sense. Management of the population. Management of expectations. Management of decline. Mick Lynch saw a managerial Labour Party coming. What he didn’t see was a Labour Party rebuilt as a machine: centrally controlled, staffed with loyalists, a government with authoritarian instincts and no roots in the labour movement at all, parachuting in MPs with little to no experience outside political offices, hand-picked acolytes from outfits like Labour Together, selected not for independence or service to their communities, but for loyalty to the leadership. MPs whose first duty is not to their constituents, not to their country, but to the party machine and the people who control it. Labour didn’t win power for the people. Starmer won power for the global oligarchy and that little club he's been a member of since 2019... Paul Knaggs , Labour Heartlands
0:58

The former RMT General Secretary Mick Lynch warned people about #KeirStarmer before the election. Most of the media laughed it off. Many in Labour dismissed him. But he understood exactly what Starmer represented. Lynch said Starmer’s Labour was managerial, not political. A party run by lawyers, advisors, and communications professionals rather than people rooted in labour history, trade unions, industry, or working-class communities. A party that believed in management, not representation. Stability, not change. Administration, not politics. He warned that if Starmer won, Labour would not govern as a movement, but as a management team. If anything, Lynch understated it. What we have seen is not a political Prime Minister but an administrative one. Government by briefing note, by focus group, by legal framing rather than political vision. A Labour Party reshaped from a political movement into something closer to a corporate structure with MPs. Under Starmer, Labour has been changed more fundamentally than even under Blair. Blair at least had a political project. Starmer’s project has been control. Centralise the party. Remove internal opposition. Sideline unions. Purge members. Control candidate selection. Control messaging. Control policy. The result is a Labour Party that is now barely recognisable as a working-class party, and barely recognisable even as a democratic political party. It behaves more like an administrative arm of the state than a movement representing the people. Alongside this has come something else that should worry anyone who cares about civil liberties. Expanding surveillance powers. Restrictions on protest. Speech laws framed as safety. Increasing police powers. More powers for the state, fewer rights for the citizen. All passed in the language of responsibility and stability. This is managerial politics. Not leadership, not representation, not democracy in the traditional labour movement sense. Management of the population. Management of expectations. Management of decline. Mick Lynch saw a managerial Labour Party coming. What he didn’t see was a Labour Party rebuilt as a machine: centrally controlled, staffed with loyalists, a government with authoritarian instincts and no roots in the labour movement at all, parachuting in MPs with little to no experience outside political offices, hand-picked acolytes from outfits like Labour Together, selected not for independence or service to their communities, but for loyalty to the leadership. MPs whose first duty is not to their constituents, not to their country, but to the party machine and the people who control it. Labour didn’t win power for the people. Starmer won power for the global oligarchy and that little club he's been a member of since 2019... Paul Knaggs , Labour Heartlands

The Heartlands Tribune

105,438 次观看 • 4 个月前

I resigned the Labour whip during Wakefield Council meeting. Whilst speaking in a debate on austerity and welfare cuts, it became clear that the Labour Group are unwilling to genuinely represent the needs and interests of our district. Instead of supporting my motion in demanding an end to austerity, the reversal of all welfare cuts and the proper financing of local government, among other things. Labour Councillors overwhelmingly responded by watering it down, defending or excusing the government's actions and deflecting back onto the Tories and Lib Dems. Yes, criticism of the Tories and Lib Dems is warranted for their involvement in austerity over the last 14 years but, it is a Labour government that is doing it now. If we are not prepared to oppose this government with the same veracity as we did the Tories, then we are nothing more than hypocrites. Putting the current welfare cuts into perspective, they are the fifth largest tranche of cuts since 2010 and the largest since 2015. Essentially meaning that this so-called Labour Government are cutting benefits at higher levels than 9 of the 14 years the Tories were in office. Aditionally, the current disability cuts go further than the Tories were prepared to go to in 2018, as they are 3x larger than the cuts that Ian Duncan Smith resigned over. Whilst there have been other issues within the Labour Group and the wider Party that have influenced my decision, this debate was the final straw. The Labour Group are unwilling to call the government's cuts for what they really are - a continuation of Tory austerity. I was already suspended from the party for voting against the Labour Group's austerity budget which, reduced Council services by £29m, cut 250 jobs and raised Council tax by the maximum. I cannot continue to legitimise a Labour Cabinet which lied about the scale of the job cuts, and tried to decieve residents when u-turning on cuts to libraries and the garden waste services. I cannot remain a member of a political group that conducts itself in this manner, and is willing to stand by whilst the government betrays its own values and the working-class communities it is supposed to represent. Equally, I cannot continue to legitimise a Labour government that has reneged on its manifesto commitments and is attacking the poorest and most vulnerable in our society. This is not the Labour Party I joined, and it is not the Labour Party people voted for. Our district deserves better than Councillors who are putting their own positions and allowances over the needs of our residents. We deserve politicians, at all levels of government, who are honest and will genuinely represent our interests. This decision is not me leaving the Labour Party - it is the Labour Party that has left us. They do not represent working-class communities anymore and I could not look my residents in the eye if I were to continue legitimising the disgraceful choices of this Party. Just to be clear, whilst I have resigned the Labour whip, I will continue to represent Hemsworth, Kinsley, Fitzwilliam, South Hiendley & Felkirk. It will just be from the opposition benches, as an Independent Councillor. Solidarity, Jake
3:48

I resigned the Labour whip during Wakefield Council meeting. Whilst speaking in a debate on austerity and welfare cuts, it became clear that the Labour Group are unwilling to genuinely represent the needs and interests of our district. Instead of supporting my motion in demanding an end to austerity, the reversal of all welfare cuts and the proper financing of local government, among other things. Labour Councillors overwhelmingly responded by watering it down, defending or excusing the government's actions and deflecting back onto the Tories and Lib Dems. Yes, criticism of the Tories and Lib Dems is warranted for their involvement in austerity over the last 14 years but, it is a Labour government that is doing it now. If we are not prepared to oppose this government with the same veracity as we did the Tories, then we are nothing more than hypocrites. Putting the current welfare cuts into perspective, they are the fifth largest tranche of cuts since 2010 and the largest since 2015. Essentially meaning that this so-called Labour Government are cutting benefits at higher levels than 9 of the 14 years the Tories were in office. Aditionally, the current disability cuts go further than the Tories were prepared to go to in 2018, as they are 3x larger than the cuts that Ian Duncan Smith resigned over. Whilst there have been other issues within the Labour Group and the wider Party that have influenced my decision, this debate was the final straw. The Labour Group are unwilling to call the government's cuts for what they really are - a continuation of Tory austerity. I was already suspended from the party for voting against the Labour Group's austerity budget which, reduced Council services by £29m, cut 250 jobs and raised Council tax by the maximum. I cannot continue to legitimise a Labour Cabinet which lied about the scale of the job cuts, and tried to decieve residents when u-turning on cuts to libraries and the garden waste services. I cannot remain a member of a political group that conducts itself in this manner, and is willing to stand by whilst the government betrays its own values and the working-class communities it is supposed to represent. Equally, I cannot continue to legitimise a Labour government that has reneged on its manifesto commitments and is attacking the poorest and most vulnerable in our society. This is not the Labour Party I joined, and it is not the Labour Party people voted for. Our district deserves better than Councillors who are putting their own positions and allowances over the needs of our residents. We deserve politicians, at all levels of government, who are honest and will genuinely represent our interests. This decision is not me leaving the Labour Party - it is the Labour Party that has left us. They do not represent working-class communities anymore and I could not look my residents in the eye if I were to continue legitimising the disgraceful choices of this Party. Just to be clear, whilst I have resigned the Labour whip, I will continue to represent Hemsworth, Kinsley, Fitzwilliam, South Hiendley & Felkirk. It will just be from the opposition benches, as an Independent Councillor. Solidarity, Jake

Jake Williamson

195,962 次观看 • 1 年前

Zimbabwe has never been led by politics; it has always been led by the gun from the rear. In fact, the Zimbabwe African National Union (ZANU) has always been led by the gun — only the Zimbabwe African People’s Union (ZAPU) was led by politics. The first leader of ZANU was Ndabaningi Sithole. He was removed by the Mgagao Declaration, which was signed by the military wing of ZANU, the Zimbabwe African National Liberation Army (ZANLA). The chairman of ZANU and its external leader was Herbert Chitepo. He was also killed by ZANLA in Zambia according to an international commission of inquiry set up by Zambian president, Dr Kenneth Kaunda. The next leader of ZANU was Robert Mugabe. He was installed by the military, although Samora Machel the president of Mozambique had advised them against the idea. Machel was proved right in the fullness of time, but it was the military that endorsed Mugabe through Rex Nhongo who became known as Solomon Mujuru. The Lancaster House talks in Britain were almost stalled by Mugabe’s intransigence, but it was General Josiah Tongogara, with the help of Samora Machel, who forced Mugabe to sign — after Machel sent his special aide, Fernando Honwana, to tell Mugabe to sign or come back to Maputo and write his memoirs on the beach. Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, it was the military, through its commanders, that influenced politics. In fact, any time Mugabe felt threatened, it was the military that sorted out party problems. General Solomon Mujuru was nicknamed the Kingmaker because of that, he was a powerful behind-the-scenes Politburo influencer when he was the overall commander of the army. Post-2000, it was the military that kept ZANUPF in power and actually ran its elections in tandem with the CIO. It was General Vitalis Zvinavashe who threatened citizens saying the military won’t accept a Morgan Tsvangirai victory. Though not a visible Politburo member in the 1980s, he was deeply embedded in both party and military affairs. General Constantino Chiwenga was effectively a military commissar for ZANUPF, executing the first bloodless coup in 2008 when the military stopped Morgan Tsvangirai from taking over after defeating Robert Mugabe. He was heavily involved in the 2013 elections with Air Marshal Muchena and eventually carried out a military coup that put Mnangagwa and the current regime in power. When the new crop of so called technocrats was appointed by Mugabe in 2000, it was General Chiwenga who was involved and when they hit a brick wall, they would return to him. The first time the military refused to be involved in politics — which is the real first aberration — was two weeks ago, when General Anselem Nhamo Sanyatwe refused to deploy soldiers against civilians and was fired for that. The ZANUPF spokesman Christopher Mutsvangwa called it disloyalty. If President Emmerson Mnangagwa manages to fire General Chiwenga tomorrow, as rumours suggest, without any blowback or deadly consequences, he would become the first ZANUPF leader to lead the gun — and not be removed by the military. So I disagree with the notion by my brother, Prof Jonathan Moyo, that the 2017 coup was an aberration. It wasn’t — it was the norm. What was an aberration was the amount of violence against the CIO and police officers who tried to resist. What has kept Emmerson Mnangagwa in power after his power struggle with his Vice President is his clansman, General Philip Valerio Sibanda who is the Commander of the Zimbabwe Defence Forces. He is opposed to General Chiwenga taking over as president and has been a stumbling block for the Vice President. Mnangagwa has been strategic by removing the former ZANLA army commanders from the top of the military because they are loyal to Chiwenga, who was in ZANLA, and replacing them with ex-Zimbabwe People’s Revolutionary Army (ZIPRA) commanders. General Sibanda and the Commander of the Army, General Emmanuel Matatu, are both ex-ZIPRA, and they are all from the Midlands, like Mnangagwa.
1:02

Zimbabwe has never been led by politics; it has always been led by the gun from the rear. In fact, the Zimbabwe African National Union (ZANU) has always been led by the gun — only the Zimbabwe African People’s Union (ZAPU) was led by politics. The first leader of ZANU was Ndabaningi Sithole. He was removed by the Mgagao Declaration, which was signed by the military wing of ZANU, the Zimbabwe African National Liberation Army (ZANLA). The chairman of ZANU and its external leader was Herbert Chitepo. He was also killed by ZANLA in Zambia according to an international commission of inquiry set up by Zambian president, Dr Kenneth Kaunda. The next leader of ZANU was Robert Mugabe. He was installed by the military, although Samora Machel the president of Mozambique had advised them against the idea. Machel was proved right in the fullness of time, but it was the military that endorsed Mugabe through Rex Nhongo who became known as Solomon Mujuru. The Lancaster House talks in Britain were almost stalled by Mugabe’s intransigence, but it was General Josiah Tongogara, with the help of Samora Machel, who forced Mugabe to sign — after Machel sent his special aide, Fernando Honwana, to tell Mugabe to sign or come back to Maputo and write his memoirs on the beach. Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, it was the military, through its commanders, that influenced politics. In fact, any time Mugabe felt threatened, it was the military that sorted out party problems. General Solomon Mujuru was nicknamed the Kingmaker because of that, he was a powerful behind-the-scenes Politburo influencer when he was the overall commander of the army. Post-2000, it was the military that kept ZANUPF in power and actually ran its elections in tandem with the CIO. It was General Vitalis Zvinavashe who threatened citizens saying the military won’t accept a Morgan Tsvangirai victory. Though not a visible Politburo member in the 1980s, he was deeply embedded in both party and military affairs. General Constantino Chiwenga was effectively a military commissar for ZANUPF, executing the first bloodless coup in 2008 when the military stopped Morgan Tsvangirai from taking over after defeating Robert Mugabe. He was heavily involved in the 2013 elections with Air Marshal Muchena and eventually carried out a military coup that put Mnangagwa and the current regime in power. When the new crop of so called technocrats was appointed by Mugabe in 2000, it was General Chiwenga who was involved and when they hit a brick wall, they would return to him. The first time the military refused to be involved in politics — which is the real first aberration — was two weeks ago, when General Anselem Nhamo Sanyatwe refused to deploy soldiers against civilians and was fired for that. The ZANUPF spokesman Christopher Mutsvangwa called it disloyalty. If President Emmerson Mnangagwa manages to fire General Chiwenga tomorrow, as rumours suggest, without any blowback or deadly consequences, he would become the first ZANUPF leader to lead the gun — and not be removed by the military. So I disagree with the notion by my brother, Prof Jonathan Moyo, that the 2017 coup was an aberration. It wasn’t — it was the norm. What was an aberration was the amount of violence against the CIO and police officers who tried to resist. What has kept Emmerson Mnangagwa in power after his power struggle with his Vice President is his clansman, General Philip Valerio Sibanda who is the Commander of the Zimbabwe Defence Forces. He is opposed to General Chiwenga taking over as president and has been a stumbling block for the Vice President. Mnangagwa has been strategic by removing the former ZANLA army commanders from the top of the military because they are loyal to Chiwenga, who was in ZANLA, and replacing them with ex-Zimbabwe People’s Revolutionary Army (ZIPRA) commanders. General Sibanda and the Commander of the Army, General Emmanuel Matatu, are both ex-ZIPRA, and they are all from the Midlands, like Mnangagwa.

Hopewell Chin’ono

134,231 次观看 • 1 年前

Retired pharma R&D executive says "the whole idea of vaccination and public health was always [about] eugenics"🩸💉 "it was always the mechanism the government... [used] to keep the population under control" "it's... especially [about] access to each and every body with injections, with needles. That's what they're always after" sashalatypova.substack.com "Due Diligence and Art" Andrew Kaufman MD ---------------Partial transcription of clip---------------- Latypova: "As I've been saying for a long time, this whole idea of vaccination, public health, was always eugenics idea. It was always the mechanism that the government, early on, the monarchy or some other type of government figured out that this is a great method to keep the population under control. "And they were pretty explicit about this in many, many documents, more contemporary documents as population control policies, population control strategies." Kaufman: "Well we even have vaccines that are used as birth control, right? They've been studied in, in, in clinical trials that are published." Latypova: "Oh yeah, I'm just— I'm going to publish about that. I found one paper that's, of course, in French, it's not in English, so I auto translated it, and it's very explicit. We are developing contraceptive vaccines for the developing countries for the purposes of population control. It's very explicit—" Kaufman: "I have a study published in English, very similar. It was done in Africa. I can get you a copy of that if you like...." Latypova: "So, the governments together with these 'scientists,' you know, I can't call them scientists, they are profiteers, off of this idea, like Koch, like Pasteur, Mechnikov, there was a bunch of Russian ones. So they started the whole idea of hunting viruses became very lucrative because if you could isolate and find something or virus or bacteria or some bacilli, like the Koch, then you could become rich and famous because you could be awarded big commissions from the government, given lots of power, and labs and staff." "And, of course, you can then patent your inventions and sell them in terms of rabies shots or tuberculin or things like that. There were attempts at vaccines for diphtheria, vaccines for plague, cholera, none of them worked, they all failed." Kaufman: "And they were, they were experimenting with different technologies at that time as well, right? Because I believe the diphtheria immunization was made from horse serum. Right? Rather than, you know, something in a culture or, or from a, from an animal lesion. So, sort of closer to what might be called today monoclonal antibody technology." Latypova: "Yes... it's very similar the monoclonal that they use horses for, commonly. That was how it originated. "Also, they experimented with injecting all sorts of things. So, for example, foot and mouth disease also at the same time was being claimed to be viral. And they would invariably, they will claim either it's a virus or it's a bacterial toxin, depending on the situation. "But it's always because they can't find anything in the solution that they make. So if they can't find any cells, then they will claim it's a virus or it's a bacterial toxin just because it's invisible. It's very convenient." Kaufman: "So this would incentivize the scientist or the businessman because there's a big commercial opportunity there to become rich and famous. But from the government's perspective, who may be financing these operations, it's a tool of eugenics and health control, essentially." Latypova: "Yeah, it's... especially access to each and every body with injection, with a needle. That's what they're always after. And it continues today."
3:49

Retired pharma R&D executive says "the whole idea of vaccination and public health was always [about] eugenics"🩸💉 "it was always the mechanism the government... [used] to keep the population under control" "it's... especially [about] access to each and every body with injections, with needles. That's what they're always after" sashalatypova.substack.com "Due Diligence and Art" Andrew Kaufman MD ---------------Partial transcription of clip---------------- Latypova: "As I've been saying for a long time, this whole idea of vaccination, public health, was always eugenics idea. It was always the mechanism that the government, early on, the monarchy or some other type of government figured out that this is a great method to keep the population under control. "And they were pretty explicit about this in many, many documents, more contemporary documents as population control policies, population control strategies." Kaufman: "Well we even have vaccines that are used as birth control, right? They've been studied in, in, in clinical trials that are published." Latypova: "Oh yeah, I'm just— I'm going to publish about that. I found one paper that's, of course, in French, it's not in English, so I auto translated it, and it's very explicit. We are developing contraceptive vaccines for the developing countries for the purposes of population control. It's very explicit—" Kaufman: "I have a study published in English, very similar. It was done in Africa. I can get you a copy of that if you like...." Latypova: "So, the governments together with these 'scientists,' you know, I can't call them scientists, they are profiteers, off of this idea, like Koch, like Pasteur, Mechnikov, there was a bunch of Russian ones. So they started the whole idea of hunting viruses became very lucrative because if you could isolate and find something or virus or bacteria or some bacilli, like the Koch, then you could become rich and famous because you could be awarded big commissions from the government, given lots of power, and labs and staff." "And, of course, you can then patent your inventions and sell them in terms of rabies shots or tuberculin or things like that. There were attempts at vaccines for diphtheria, vaccines for plague, cholera, none of them worked, they all failed." Kaufman: "And they were, they were experimenting with different technologies at that time as well, right? Because I believe the diphtheria immunization was made from horse serum. Right? Rather than, you know, something in a culture or, or from a, from an animal lesion. So, sort of closer to what might be called today monoclonal antibody technology." Latypova: "Yes... it's very similar the monoclonal that they use horses for, commonly. That was how it originated. "Also, they experimented with injecting all sorts of things. So, for example, foot and mouth disease also at the same time was being claimed to be viral. And they would invariably, they will claim either it's a virus or it's a bacterial toxin, depending on the situation. "But it's always because they can't find anything in the solution that they make. So if they can't find any cells, then they will claim it's a virus or it's a bacterial toxin just because it's invisible. It's very convenient." Kaufman: "So this would incentivize the scientist or the businessman because there's a big commercial opportunity there to become rich and famous. But from the government's perspective, who may be financing these operations, it's a tool of eugenics and health control, essentially." Latypova: "Yeah, it's... especially access to each and every body with injection, with a needle. That's what they're always after. And it continues today."

Sense Receptor

12,325 次观看 • 1 个月前

When the Nigerian economy fell into hard times in the early 1980s, the government issued a “Quit order” expelling undocumented immigrants. In the video below, Nigeria’s president, “Minister” Shehu Shagari fielded questions about the scale and the death of people during the mass exodus. Interestingly, there was not much improvement in Nigeria’s economy after the order was carried out. According to Dr Hashim Gibrill of Clark Atlanta University, “The economic impact was acute, notably in sectors like hospitality and construction, where many skilled workers were lost”. Many foreign manual labourers and skilled tradesmen vanished overnight, stalling building projects, while small businesses, hotels, and agricultural sectors lost a massive pool of cheap, reliable labour. At the same time, the policy failed to save the government economically as the economy continued to freefall. On 31 December, 1983, less than a year after the expulsion order, military Major General Muhammadu Buhari overthrew the government in a military coup, citing a completely ruined economy. Ultimately, historians agree that the 1983 expulsion was a severe humanitarian tragedy that caused massive regional disruption and provided absolutely zero economic relief to Nigeria. Now, to be fair, it makes total intuitive sense on the surface for people to believe that expelling migrants will improve their economic situation. That is precisely why political leaders throughout history have used this tactic because it relies on logic that feels like common sense, even though economic reality repeatedly proves it wrong. This is because from a purely intuitive standpoint, people tend to look at the economy as a zero-sum game, with jobs, housing, and government resources as a fixed pie. It sense that if there are 100 jobs and 20 immigrants occupy some of them, expelling those immigrants means 20 citizens get those jobs. Similarly, when unemployment and inequality are high, finding complex macroeconomic solutions takes years. But blaming a visible, distinct group of outsiders offers an instant, simple explanation for a complex mess, which makes it attractive to a frustrated public. But the thing is that in any economy, jobs are not a fixed pie, and when you suddenly remove millions of consumers from a country, as Nigeria did in 1983, the demand for bread, clothes, transport, and rent plummets. Businesses lose customers, revenues drop, and many end up retrenching more workers. Again, it’s common sense to assume a citizen will just step into an undocumented worker’s shoes. But in reality, citizens often refuse to work the same low-wage, backbreaking labour like seasonal agriculture. South African farmers routinely report struggling to recruit and retain local South African workers for these short-term, backbreaking harvesting seasons as farm work is highly intensive, temporary, and often located in remote areas. South African citizens, who have constitutional rights, families to support locally, and expectations of fair labor standards, rightfully refuse to work for these illegal, sub-poverty wages. So, this is less about citizens being “lazy” and more about the distortion of the labour market because undocumented workers lack legal protections, unscrupulous employers exploit them by paying well below the legal minimum wage and ignoring labour laws. Still, if those undocumented workers disappear overnight, many exploitative small businesses and farms face sudden operational collapse rather than a seamless transition to local labour. Needless to say, for South Africa, a sudden exit of regional labour, much like Nigeria experienced in 1983, would not solve South Africa’s unemployment catastrophe. Instead, it would instead cause immediate labour shortages in agriculture, spike food prices and shrink the overall size of the economic pie available to everyone.
1:32

When the Nigerian economy fell into hard times in the early 1980s, the government issued a “Quit order” expelling undocumented immigrants. In the video below, Nigeria’s president, “Minister” Shehu Shagari fielded questions about the scale and the death of people during the mass exodus. Interestingly, there was not much improvement in Nigeria’s economy after the order was carried out. According to Dr Hashim Gibrill of Clark Atlanta University, “The economic impact was acute, notably in sectors like hospitality and construction, where many skilled workers were lost”. Many foreign manual labourers and skilled tradesmen vanished overnight, stalling building projects, while small businesses, hotels, and agricultural sectors lost a massive pool of cheap, reliable labour. At the same time, the policy failed to save the government economically as the economy continued to freefall. On 31 December, 1983, less than a year after the expulsion order, military Major General Muhammadu Buhari overthrew the government in a military coup, citing a completely ruined economy. Ultimately, historians agree that the 1983 expulsion was a severe humanitarian tragedy that caused massive regional disruption and provided absolutely zero economic relief to Nigeria. Now, to be fair, it makes total intuitive sense on the surface for people to believe that expelling migrants will improve their economic situation. That is precisely why political leaders throughout history have used this tactic because it relies on logic that feels like common sense, even though economic reality repeatedly proves it wrong. This is because from a purely intuitive standpoint, people tend to look at the economy as a zero-sum game, with jobs, housing, and government resources as a fixed pie. It sense that if there are 100 jobs and 20 immigrants occupy some of them, expelling those immigrants means 20 citizens get those jobs. Similarly, when unemployment and inequality are high, finding complex macroeconomic solutions takes years. But blaming a visible, distinct group of outsiders offers an instant, simple explanation for a complex mess, which makes it attractive to a frustrated public. But the thing is that in any economy, jobs are not a fixed pie, and when you suddenly remove millions of consumers from a country, as Nigeria did in 1983, the demand for bread, clothes, transport, and rent plummets. Businesses lose customers, revenues drop, and many end up retrenching more workers. Again, it’s common sense to assume a citizen will just step into an undocumented worker’s shoes. But in reality, citizens often refuse to work the same low-wage, backbreaking labour like seasonal agriculture. South African farmers routinely report struggling to recruit and retain local South African workers for these short-term, backbreaking harvesting seasons as farm work is highly intensive, temporary, and often located in remote areas. South African citizens, who have constitutional rights, families to support locally, and expectations of fair labor standards, rightfully refuse to work for these illegal, sub-poverty wages. So, this is less about citizens being “lazy” and more about the distortion of the labour market because undocumented workers lack legal protections, unscrupulous employers exploit them by paying well below the legal minimum wage and ignoring labour laws. Still, if those undocumented workers disappear overnight, many exploitative small businesses and farms face sudden operational collapse rather than a seamless transition to local labour. Needless to say, for South Africa, a sudden exit of regional labour, much like Nigeria experienced in 1983, would not solve South Africa’s unemployment catastrophe. Instead, it would instead cause immediate labour shortages in agriculture, spike food prices and shrink the overall size of the economic pie available to everyone.

Sizwe SikaMusi

53,049 次观看 • 1 个月前

We've just been passed the BBC's response to a complaint after Good Morning Scotland concealed an academic's links to Labour during an interview about the winter fuel payment and a warning from Age Scotland. We've reproduced the complaint and response below. We've also included the full interview. There's something untoward at play here. The complaint: Good Morning Scotland conducted an interview with professor June Andrews. The interview centred around the cut to the winter fuel payment and had been prompted by criticism by Age Scotland of the UK Labour Govt's decision to cut the benefit. The charity had claimed that cutting the benefit would see more old people admitted to hospital with hypothermia. The interview was conducted by Laura Maxwell who introduced the academic as follows "Well Professor June Andrews is an expert in the care of older people." The academic challenged Age Scotland's claims and backed Labour's decision to cut the benefit. Professor Andrews views were later used on the programme to challenge Scottish Govt minister Ivan McKee. The academic was presented as someone with no political allegiances or viewpoints. This was far from the truth. Professor June Andrews is a Labour supporter and party activist who makes no attempt to hide her political allegiance. A quick glance at her social media profile - publicly available at the time of the interview - makes this clear, with post after post promoting tweets from senior Labour party figures. The academic tweeted an image during the recent general election campaign showing her with other Labour party activists as they campaigned for Labour candidate Gregor Poynton. Section 4.3.12 of the BBC Guidelines states 'We should not automatically assume that contributors from other organisations (such as academics, journalists, researchers and representatives of charities and think-tanks) are unbiased. Appropriate information about their affiliations, funding and particular viewpoints should be made available to the audience, when relevant to the context.' Professor June Andrews was far from unbiased. Good Morning Scotland should have told listeners that the academic was a Labour party activist and supporter. In failing to do so the programme breached Section 4.3.12 of the BBC Guidelines. A public apology is merited. The response: We note your comments regarding Good Morning Scotland on 28 October and the interview with Prof June Andrews. As you mention, Prof Andrews was introduced as an “an expert in the care of older people” and was being interviewed for her view in this capacity, following Age Scotland’s claim that the cutting of the universal winter fuel benefit for pensioners will see more old people admitted to hospital with hypothermia. Prof Andrews, given her area of expertise, has been a contributor on a number of occasions to items regarding the care of older people and was again introduced in this context, with a range of views on the subject heard within the wider programme – this included hearing directly from Scottish Government minister Ivan McKee, as you say. While we wouldn’t agree with a suggestion that simply holding any political views was a requisite for such an introduction, given the capacity in which Prof Andrews was invited onto the programme to speak, we would suggest that the conveyance to listeners of any political views that a contributor may hold is not limited to how a guest is introduced; for example, there is the opportunity within the line of questioning and by any political points being scrutinised and challenged – accepting that, in a live interview, in keeping the interview and programme on track, it isn’t always possible to challenge a guest on every point they’ve made and that it may be a subsequent interview or similar piece of our output that provides for other views and points to be put across. We note your call for a public apology but don’t believe it is merited here. We would, however, remind our teams of the merit of identifying and challenging, there and then, political points made during interviews. Thank you again for getting in touch.
7:38

We've just been passed the BBC's response to a complaint after Good Morning Scotland concealed an academic's links to Labour during an interview about the winter fuel payment and a warning from Age Scotland. We've reproduced the complaint and response below. We've also included the full interview. There's something untoward at play here. The complaint: Good Morning Scotland conducted an interview with professor June Andrews. The interview centred around the cut to the winter fuel payment and had been prompted by criticism by Age Scotland of the UK Labour Govt's decision to cut the benefit. The charity had claimed that cutting the benefit would see more old people admitted to hospital with hypothermia. The interview was conducted by Laura Maxwell who introduced the academic as follows "Well Professor June Andrews is an expert in the care of older people." The academic challenged Age Scotland's claims and backed Labour's decision to cut the benefit. Professor Andrews views were later used on the programme to challenge Scottish Govt minister Ivan McKee. The academic was presented as someone with no political allegiances or viewpoints. This was far from the truth. Professor June Andrews is a Labour supporter and party activist who makes no attempt to hide her political allegiance. A quick glance at her social media profile - publicly available at the time of the interview - makes this clear, with post after post promoting tweets from senior Labour party figures. The academic tweeted an image during the recent general election campaign showing her with other Labour party activists as they campaigned for Labour candidate Gregor Poynton. Section 4.3.12 of the BBC Guidelines states 'We should not automatically assume that contributors from other organisations (such as academics, journalists, researchers and representatives of charities and think-tanks) are unbiased. Appropriate information about their affiliations, funding and particular viewpoints should be made available to the audience, when relevant to the context.' Professor June Andrews was far from unbiased. Good Morning Scotland should have told listeners that the academic was a Labour party activist and supporter. In failing to do so the programme breached Section 4.3.12 of the BBC Guidelines. A public apology is merited. The response: We note your comments regarding Good Morning Scotland on 28 October and the interview with Prof June Andrews. As you mention, Prof Andrews was introduced as an “an expert in the care of older people” and was being interviewed for her view in this capacity, following Age Scotland’s claim that the cutting of the universal winter fuel benefit for pensioners will see more old people admitted to hospital with hypothermia. Prof Andrews, given her area of expertise, has been a contributor on a number of occasions to items regarding the care of older people and was again introduced in this context, with a range of views on the subject heard within the wider programme – this included hearing directly from Scottish Government minister Ivan McKee, as you say. While we wouldn’t agree with a suggestion that simply holding any political views was a requisite for such an introduction, given the capacity in which Prof Andrews was invited onto the programme to speak, we would suggest that the conveyance to listeners of any political views that a contributor may hold is not limited to how a guest is introduced; for example, there is the opportunity within the line of questioning and by any political points being scrutinised and challenged – accepting that, in a live interview, in keeping the interview and programme on track, it isn’t always possible to challenge a guest on every point they’ve made and that it may be a subsequent interview or similar piece of our output that provides for other views and points to be put across. We note your call for a public apology but don’t believe it is merited here. We would, however, remind our teams of the merit of identifying and challenging, there and then, political points made during interviews. Thank you again for getting in touch.

MSM Monitor

28,722 次观看 • 1 年前

NYSC is trending because Nigerians are calling on FG to scrap it for real this time. In Kano, NYSC refused to register corp members. After a while, they received "order from above" to only allow pregnant women and breastfeeding mothers in. Then, they asked the rest go to back home. After travelling for miles. In Kebbi state, corpers were asked to go back home, because the portal is locked and registration is impossible until further notice. In Benue state, NYSC refused to attend to corp members for three days. Leaving them stranded. In Niger state, PCM were originally meant to go with Batch C. But they received call up letters recently, inviting them to camp with Stream II Batch B. On their arrival, NYSC told them to go back home, because they've been moved back to Stream I Batch C, due for camp around October/November. (According to multiple sources) In Adamawa state, the gate was shut for late comers. Regardless of where they came from, NYSC asked them to go back home. After navigating the unsafe conditions of the highways, and spending resources. Prospective corp members are pleading with NYSC for empathy. Meanwhile, Nigerians are asking the FG to scrap it since they can no longer organize it.
0:30

NYSC is trending because Nigerians are calling on FG to scrap it for real this time. In Kano, NYSC refused to register corp members. After a while, they received "order from above" to only allow pregnant women and breastfeeding mothers in. Then, they asked the rest go to back home. After travelling for miles. In Kebbi state, corpers were asked to go back home, because the portal is locked and registration is impossible until further notice. In Benue state, NYSC refused to attend to corp members for three days. Leaving them stranded. In Niger state, PCM were originally meant to go with Batch C. But they received call up letters recently, inviting them to camp with Stream II Batch B. On their arrival, NYSC told them to go back home, because they've been moved back to Stream I Batch C, due for camp around October/November. (According to multiple sources) In Adamawa state, the gate was shut for late comers. Regardless of where they came from, NYSC asked them to go back home. After navigating the unsafe conditions of the highways, and spending resources. Prospective corp members are pleading with NYSC for empathy. Meanwhile, Nigerians are asking the FG to scrap it since they can no longer organize it.

Trending Explained

70,780 次观看 • 2 年前