Sensitive content

This media may contain sensitive content.

正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

返回首页

Walmart Greeter BBW Granny called over BBC again for first time anal fun pt.4 #NSFW #BBC #BBW #GRANNY #MATURE #MISSIONARY #WALMART #ANAL #GAPED #MOANS #BNWO #LINKINBIO #LINKINCOMMENTS

MistahFocus's profile picture

🇺🇸 Ronald Carter

4,267 subscribers

93,242 次观看 • 4 个月前 •via X (Twitter)

NSFW#NSFW#BBC#BBW#GRANNY#MATURE#MISSIONARY#WALMART#ANAL#GAPED#MOANS#BNWO#LINKINBIO#LINKINCOMMENTS
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 条评论

暂无评论

原始帖子的评论将显示在这里

相关视频

Mz.Dani revealed she wants her first an*l scene to be with Dredd and his BBC She shared a story about a man from Milwaukee who initially connected with her through a free tattoo, and their relationship later became more personal. She clarified that the tattoo wasn’t exchanged for anything—it simply developed naturally over time. She also explained that she’s been preparing herself for a future scene with a performer she finds very attractive(Dredd) and has been taking things step by step. “let’s try this again because I’m really trying to train my b#tthole because I want to anal with someone in the industry who’s like huge,you have to start with a smaller d1ck though…yeah he’s got a huge d1ck”
2:32

Sensitive content

Mz.Dani revealed she wants her first an*l scene to be with Dredd and his BBC She shared a story about a man from Milwaukee who initially connected with her through a free tattoo, and their relationship later became more personal. She clarified that the tattoo wasn’t exchanged for anything—it simply developed naturally over time. She also explained that she’s been preparing herself for a future scene with a performer she finds very attractive(Dredd) and has been taking things step by step. “let’s try this again because I’m really trying to train my b#tthole because I want to anal with someone in the industry who’s like huge,you have to start with a smaller d1ck though…yeah he’s got a huge d1ck”

Fazzy

235,736 次观看 • 2 个月前

25 YEARS AGO TODAY, the very first series of Celebrity Big Brother launched 👁️🔴 The series lasted just 8 days, and was supposed to be a one-off Comic Relief special, but it ended up going on to have a monumental impact on reality TV. There have now been 24 series of CBB, and it is the only British TV show in history to air on every main channel: BBC One, Channel 4, Channel 5, and now ITV. It returns for a 25th series next year, on ITV. The first series was won by comedian Jack Dee, but the most memorable moment however, was when Vanessa Feltz had a meltdown on the dining table. She had only been locked away for.. 3 days. While series 1 was the most watched ever, with an average of 5.2 million viewers, it went on to have a bigger global impact over the years. Series 4 had the first ever ‘civilian’ contestant take part, Chantelle, who went on to win the show. Series 5 had the infamous race-row, which made global news and had an impact on political relations between the UK and India. Series 11 was won by Rylan, who went on to host the side show for 5 years, and he then became a regular TV presenter on Strictly and Eurovision. Series 13 was extended mid-series and went on to reach 3.7 million viewers. Series 17 became viral with Tiffany Pollard vs. Gemma Collins, which later went on to spawn a Zara Larsson song a decade later. Also… RIP David. Series 22 saw it cancelled for the 3rd time, but not without making international news once again, thanks to Roxanne Pallet. Series 23 relaunched on ITV, and featured Ex-Factor judges Louis Walsh and Sharon Osbourne. Then… the most recent series went viral once more, thanks to a blossoming relationship between former Love Islander Chris Hughes and at-the-time lesbian, JoJo Siwa. And let’s not forget one of the best things Celebrity Big Brother ever gave us — Kim Woodburn. RIP Queen of clean!
1:33

25 YEARS AGO TODAY, the very first series of Celebrity Big Brother launched 👁️🔴 The series lasted just 8 days, and was supposed to be a one-off Comic Relief special, but it ended up going on to have a monumental impact on reality TV. There have now been 24 series of CBB, and it is the only British TV show in history to air on every main channel: BBC One, Channel 4, Channel 5, and now ITV. It returns for a 25th series next year, on ITV. The first series was won by comedian Jack Dee, but the most memorable moment however, was when Vanessa Feltz had a meltdown on the dining table. She had only been locked away for.. 3 days. While series 1 was the most watched ever, with an average of 5.2 million viewers, it went on to have a bigger global impact over the years. Series 4 had the first ever ‘civilian’ contestant take part, Chantelle, who went on to win the show. Series 5 had the infamous race-row, which made global news and had an impact on political relations between the UK and India. Series 11 was won by Rylan, who went on to host the side show for 5 years, and he then became a regular TV presenter on Strictly and Eurovision. Series 13 was extended mid-series and went on to reach 3.7 million viewers. Series 17 became viral with Tiffany Pollard vs. Gemma Collins, which later went on to spawn a Zara Larsson song a decade later. Also… RIP David. Series 22 saw it cancelled for the 3rd time, but not without making international news once again, thanks to Roxanne Pallet. Series 23 relaunched on ITV, and featured Ex-Factor judges Louis Walsh and Sharon Osbourne. Then… the most recent series went viral once more, thanks to a blossoming relationship between former Love Islander Chris Hughes and at-the-time lesbian, JoJo Siwa. And let’s not forget one of the best things Celebrity Big Brother ever gave us — Kim Woodburn. RIP Queen of clean!

sᴜᴘᴇʀ ᴛᴠ

81,892 次观看 • 5 个月前

ONE TAPE NOBODY WANTED TO WATCH In 2008 a teenage girl in Rochdale told police she had been ra*ed. The Crown Prosecution Service Crown Prosecution Service watched hours of her taped testimony, had DNA evidence, and decided a jury would not find her credible. They dropped the case. While that was happening, an NHS sexual health worker named Sara Rowbotham was doing the opposite of nothing. Between 2004 and 2011 she sent 181 referrals to police and social services flagging the exploitation of girls in the area. Nobody acted on them. In 2014, 2 years after 9 men went to prison off the back of this, the council made her redundant. In 2011 a new chief prosecutor landed in the job. Nazir Afzal nazir afzal pulled up the same interview tape everyone else had ignored. Partway through the girl's testimony, the officer interviewing her yawned. Afzal reversed the CPS decision within days. 9 men were convicted in 2012. Years later a second, entirely separate Rochdale network surfaced, different girls, different men, decades of abuse nobody caught the first time round. Its ringleader Mohammed Zahid got 35 years in October 2025. Same town, 2 rings, both missed for over a decade. Afzal didn't stop there. He prosecuted BBC News (UK) presenter Stuart Hall for decades of child abuse. Then he turned on the Metropolitan Police, who have declined to investigate allegations involving Prince Andrew 3 separate times, in 2015, 2021 and again in December 2025. He told Channel 4 News "I can't think of any other reason" why the Met wouldn't investigate. For saying that out loud he got death threats. The English Defence League camped outside his house demanding he be deported. He was born in Birmingham. The CPS let him go in 2015. Their official line was efficiency savings. So here's the scoreboard. The woman who spent a decade raising the alarm lost her job. The man who finally acted on it lost his job too. The force that spent a decade finding reasons not to look at a prince kept theirs intact. Nobody who behaved badly in this story paid for it. Everybody who did the right thing did. SOURCES BBC News (UK) Channel 4 News ITV News The Guardian Reuters
1:07

ONE TAPE NOBODY WANTED TO WATCH In 2008 a teenage girl in Rochdale told police she had been ra*ed. The Crown Prosecution Service Crown Prosecution Service watched hours of her taped testimony, had DNA evidence, and decided a jury would not find her credible. They dropped the case. While that was happening, an NHS sexual health worker named Sara Rowbotham was doing the opposite of nothing. Between 2004 and 2011 she sent 181 referrals to police and social services flagging the exploitation of girls in the area. Nobody acted on them. In 2014, 2 years after 9 men went to prison off the back of this, the council made her redundant. In 2011 a new chief prosecutor landed in the job. Nazir Afzal nazir afzal pulled up the same interview tape everyone else had ignored. Partway through the girl's testimony, the officer interviewing her yawned. Afzal reversed the CPS decision within days. 9 men were convicted in 2012. Years later a second, entirely separate Rochdale network surfaced, different girls, different men, decades of abuse nobody caught the first time round. Its ringleader Mohammed Zahid got 35 years in October 2025. Same town, 2 rings, both missed for over a decade. Afzal didn't stop there. He prosecuted BBC News (UK) presenter Stuart Hall for decades of child abuse. Then he turned on the Metropolitan Police, who have declined to investigate allegations involving Prince Andrew 3 separate times, in 2015, 2021 and again in December 2025. He told Channel 4 News "I can't think of any other reason" why the Met wouldn't investigate. For saying that out loud he got death threats. The English Defence League camped outside his house demanding he be deported. He was born in Birmingham. The CPS let him go in 2015. Their official line was efficiency savings. So here's the scoreboard. The woman who spent a decade raising the alarm lost her job. The man who finally acted on it lost his job too. The force that spent a decade finding reasons not to look at a prince kept theirs intact. Nobody who behaved badly in this story paid for it. Everybody who did the right thing did. SOURCES BBC News (UK) Channel 4 News ITV News The Guardian Reuters

Artur Nadolny

79,525 次观看 • 1 个月前

Oprah Winfrey is Coming Under HEAVY SCRUTINY Over Her Suspicious Maui Land Purchasing Just Prior To The Lahaina, Maui, Hawaii Fires 🔥 ‌ OPRAH: “Owns over 2000 acres on Maui, 870 of which were just purchased earlier this year” What Luck! How Did She Know?!? ‌ We have the media trying to paid Oprah as a saint as you see in some of these news clips but local residents (and anyone with a brain) IS NOT BUYING IT ‌ “We move on for the moment to one of the island's most famous long time residents. This is on the recovery side of things, Oprah Winfrey. She spent the past several days, along with many, many others, doing what she could. You would see people lined up, cots, cots, cots, right next to each other. You would see people with all of their worldly possessions in, you know, like a small garbage bag. You figure out what the rebuild. ‌ I'm not buying it owning 2,000 acres of someone else's land, someone else's sacred land. Oprah now commands over 1,000 acres, but here's the twist. Amidst this real estate surge, a sudden fire happens, destroying homes nearby, but leaving her vast terrains unscathed. Once again, Oprah Winfrey is allegedly on the verge of getting canceled over the whooping amount of land she owns in Maui, amid the recent devastating fires in the area. ‌ Let us take a look at Oprah Winfrey and her lands that are causing her controversy after controversy. Oprah Winfrey has sparked controversy with her recent visit to the War Memorial Complex in Wailuku, which is currently functioning as an emergency shelter for survivors of the Maui fires. Her visit generated headlines after reports emerged that she was denied entry along with a CBS News crew. ‌ Oprah's initial visit was met with restrictions imposed by the shelter management and according to reports she was informed that no camera crews or journalists would be allowed inside the shelter to respect the privacy and dignity of those seeking refuge. ‌ —— ongoing debate about her presence and actions in Maui in light of her purchases of over 2000 acres as natives continue to be priced out of their ancestral home. Since the fires began, people have called out Oprah on social media and this situation has only deepened the debate over her controversial presence on Maui since she has been a part time resident of the island since the early 2000s ‌ She owns over 2000 acres on Maui, 870 of which were just purchased earlier this year. One of the things Oprah was able to do after she took her first tour through there, had a visit with people, is she went to Costco, she went to Wal-Mart and she bought just basic necessities. Oprah told BBC that she found out what people needed then shopped at Walmart and Costco so she could hand out supplies like pillows, shampoo and diapers. And outside of the shelter, she and CBS News spoke to some victims and volunteers. These reports caused an uproar online and allegations started being thrown around. ‌ Most were asking why a billionaire with such a lot of land in Maui, which has been alleged to not have been scathed, did not offer to help by seeking shelter for the residents. Some claimed that buying necessities for the people would close people's eyes to the fact that she has enough of the locals' land to help them out. The County of Maui shared a statement on Facebook writing, To clarify, Oprah was able to visit our shelter and we thank her for instructing media journalists and camera crews to remain outside. We welcome Oprah to continue to uplift our community's spirit and give her aloha to victims of the tragedy. ‌ DEWs, Direct Energy Weapons #Hawaii #Maui #MauiFires #Lahaina #LahainaFires #DEWs #DirectedEnergyWeapons
3:31

Oprah Winfrey is Coming Under HEAVY SCRUTINY Over Her Suspicious Maui Land Purchasing Just Prior To The Lahaina, Maui, Hawaii Fires 🔥 ‌ OPRAH: “Owns over 2000 acres on Maui, 870 of which were just purchased earlier this year” What Luck! How Did She Know?!? ‌ We have the media trying to paid Oprah as a saint as you see in some of these news clips but local residents (and anyone with a brain) IS NOT BUYING IT ‌ “We move on for the moment to one of the island's most famous long time residents. This is on the recovery side of things, Oprah Winfrey. She spent the past several days, along with many, many others, doing what she could. You would see people lined up, cots, cots, cots, right next to each other. You would see people with all of their worldly possessions in, you know, like a small garbage bag. You figure out what the rebuild. ‌ I'm not buying it owning 2,000 acres of someone else's land, someone else's sacred land. Oprah now commands over 1,000 acres, but here's the twist. Amidst this real estate surge, a sudden fire happens, destroying homes nearby, but leaving her vast terrains unscathed. Once again, Oprah Winfrey is allegedly on the verge of getting canceled over the whooping amount of land she owns in Maui, amid the recent devastating fires in the area. ‌ Let us take a look at Oprah Winfrey and her lands that are causing her controversy after controversy. Oprah Winfrey has sparked controversy with her recent visit to the War Memorial Complex in Wailuku, which is currently functioning as an emergency shelter for survivors of the Maui fires. Her visit generated headlines after reports emerged that she was denied entry along with a CBS News crew. ‌ Oprah's initial visit was met with restrictions imposed by the shelter management and according to reports she was informed that no camera crews or journalists would be allowed inside the shelter to respect the privacy and dignity of those seeking refuge. ‌ —— ongoing debate about her presence and actions in Maui in light of her purchases of over 2000 acres as natives continue to be priced out of their ancestral home. Since the fires began, people have called out Oprah on social media and this situation has only deepened the debate over her controversial presence on Maui since she has been a part time resident of the island since the early 2000s ‌ She owns over 2000 acres on Maui, 870 of which were just purchased earlier this year. One of the things Oprah was able to do after she took her first tour through there, had a visit with people, is she went to Costco, she went to Wal-Mart and she bought just basic necessities. Oprah told BBC that she found out what people needed then shopped at Walmart and Costco so she could hand out supplies like pillows, shampoo and diapers. And outside of the shelter, she and CBS News spoke to some victims and volunteers. These reports caused an uproar online and allegations started being thrown around. ‌ Most were asking why a billionaire with such a lot of land in Maui, which has been alleged to not have been scathed, did not offer to help by seeking shelter for the residents. Some claimed that buying necessities for the people would close people's eyes to the fact that she has enough of the locals' land to help them out. The County of Maui shared a statement on Facebook writing, To clarify, Oprah was able to visit our shelter and we thank her for instructing media journalists and camera crews to remain outside. We welcome Oprah to continue to uplift our community's spirit and give her aloha to victims of the tragedy. ‌ DEWs, Direct Energy Weapons #Hawaii #Maui #MauiFires #Lahaina #LahainaFires #DEWs #DirectedEnergyWeapons

Wall Street Apes

372,637 次观看 • 3 年前

This is such a difficult watch ☹️ Amanda Abbington, "I have a 30 page report.. Nearly half of the allegations were upheld" "What's being said in the tabloids is just not true.. There were five breaches of the code of conduct within the organisation" Victoria Derbyshire, "What have the last 12 months been like for you since you left last year's Strictly?" AA, "One of the worst years of my life... Unpleasant.. Turbulent.. Relentless time in my life.. Because I alerted people of bad behaviour" VD, "In terms of the complaints against Giovanni Pernice that were upheld, what happened in rehearsals?" AA, "Verbally abused.. Sexual innuendos.. Sexual gestures.. A 35 min rant at me calling me names.. This went on for 7 hours a day for 7 weeks.. I was called mad.. Unstable" VD, "How did you respond?" AA, "I'm open to criticism.. I've worked 32 years as an actress and I've never had to leave a job or experience anything like I experienced in that rehearsal room.. I not only did it for myself but for the contestants partnered with his previously.. I wasn't the only person that complained" "When you're constantly told that you're not good enough and you're going to make a fool of yourself.. I don't respond well to that sort of teaching" VD, "Papers reported there was a crotch incident" AA, "There were two allegations of inappropriate conduct of a sexual nature and they were upheld.. One was physical.. One was verbal" "When I got a dance step right, he would outline an erection in his trousers and tell me my dance move made that happen" "They weren't isolated one off incidents.. Over a period of 7 weeks" VD, "How did you react to that?" AA, "Because you were in a bubble.. I was either being called names.. Or worked without a break.. When you're in that bubble for 7 hours a day you lose all sense of reality.. I kind of just looked and sort of went, ok.. Only when I got home did I realise.. You lose all sense of reality" "In hindsight, you walk out and you don't look back" VD, "When did you first tell someone at BBC and how did they respond?" AA, "I told producers after 3 or 4 days of being in the rehearsal room.. They said sorry and said they would monitor the situation.. This wasn't an isolated incident, I know that it happened before to other contestants" VD, "You met up with other previous dance partners" AA, "Yes.. We all found each other.. I was put in touch with a few of them through mutual friends.. We just wanted to make sure we weren't on our own thinking this just happened to us.. All of us.. Have said the same thing.. It wasn't pleasant.. It wasn't isolated.. It happened to all of us" VD, "When you first met" AA, "We all cried, we burst into tears.. It was managing the room and our own mental health and emotional well being" VD, "Sarah Vine wrote: women like AA are part of the reason other women who find themselves in worse situations dont get taken seriously. What do you say to that?" AA, "I'm always shocked when women throw other women under the bus for standing up for what they think is wrong" "So many other women have thanked me for giving them the strength to speak up in similar situations" VD, "Strictly is a family show.. Some of the things do not appear to be very wholesome" AA, "I loved Strictly.. I never wanted to cause trouble.. All I did was experience something in a workplace environment.. And I didn't want anybody else to go through what I had gone through, and what people went through in the past before me" VD, "How do you feel you have been treated by the BBC throughout this process?" AA, "It's still ongoing.. There are things in the 30 page report that are unresolved.. I'm taking guidance from my lawyer who has been so amazing" VD, "BBC says it takes allegations seriously.. We want thank AA for coming forward as its not an easy thing to do.. Do you feel the BBC were as concerned for your well being as they were for the program?" AA, "I think they tried.. But I wouldn't be sitting here if they tried harder.. I got an apology.. And a lot of the allegations were upheld.. Everybody has to be looked after so things like this don' t happen" VD, "You talk about rape and death threats" AA, "Over the last eight months, hundreds.. I had a credible death threat.. The police had to be called.. A bomb threat to my place of work.. Death threats to me, my family.. Rape threats to my 15 year old daughter" "I've got screenshots that I've sent to the Met police" VD, "Did you do the right thing speaking up?" AA, "Oh My God, yea.. All I did was ask the BBC to address inappropriate bad behaviour"
18:06

This is such a difficult watch ☹️ Amanda Abbington, "I have a 30 page report.. Nearly half of the allegations were upheld" "What's being said in the tabloids is just not true.. There were five breaches of the code of conduct within the organisation" Victoria Derbyshire, "What have the last 12 months been like for you since you left last year's Strictly?" AA, "One of the worst years of my life... Unpleasant.. Turbulent.. Relentless time in my life.. Because I alerted people of bad behaviour" VD, "In terms of the complaints against Giovanni Pernice that were upheld, what happened in rehearsals?" AA, "Verbally abused.. Sexual innuendos.. Sexual gestures.. A 35 min rant at me calling me names.. This went on for 7 hours a day for 7 weeks.. I was called mad.. Unstable" VD, "How did you respond?" AA, "I'm open to criticism.. I've worked 32 years as an actress and I've never had to leave a job or experience anything like I experienced in that rehearsal room.. I not only did it for myself but for the contestants partnered with his previously.. I wasn't the only person that complained" "When you're constantly told that you're not good enough and you're going to make a fool of yourself.. I don't respond well to that sort of teaching" VD, "Papers reported there was a crotch incident" AA, "There were two allegations of inappropriate conduct of a sexual nature and they were upheld.. One was physical.. One was verbal" "When I got a dance step right, he would outline an erection in his trousers and tell me my dance move made that happen" "They weren't isolated one off incidents.. Over a period of 7 weeks" VD, "How did you react to that?" AA, "Because you were in a bubble.. I was either being called names.. Or worked without a break.. When you're in that bubble for 7 hours a day you lose all sense of reality.. I kind of just looked and sort of went, ok.. Only when I got home did I realise.. You lose all sense of reality" "In hindsight, you walk out and you don't look back" VD, "When did you first tell someone at BBC and how did they respond?" AA, "I told producers after 3 or 4 days of being in the rehearsal room.. They said sorry and said they would monitor the situation.. This wasn't an isolated incident, I know that it happened before to other contestants" VD, "You met up with other previous dance partners" AA, "Yes.. We all found each other.. I was put in touch with a few of them through mutual friends.. We just wanted to make sure we weren't on our own thinking this just happened to us.. All of us.. Have said the same thing.. It wasn't pleasant.. It wasn't isolated.. It happened to all of us" VD, "When you first met" AA, "We all cried, we burst into tears.. It was managing the room and our own mental health and emotional well being" VD, "Sarah Vine wrote: women like AA are part of the reason other women who find themselves in worse situations dont get taken seriously. What do you say to that?" AA, "I'm always shocked when women throw other women under the bus for standing up for what they think is wrong" "So many other women have thanked me for giving them the strength to speak up in similar situations" VD, "Strictly is a family show.. Some of the things do not appear to be very wholesome" AA, "I loved Strictly.. I never wanted to cause trouble.. All I did was experience something in a workplace environment.. And I didn't want anybody else to go through what I had gone through, and what people went through in the past before me" VD, "How do you feel you have been treated by the BBC throughout this process?" AA, "It's still ongoing.. There are things in the 30 page report that are unresolved.. I'm taking guidance from my lawyer who has been so amazing" VD, "BBC says it takes allegations seriously.. We want thank AA for coming forward as its not an easy thing to do.. Do you feel the BBC were as concerned for your well being as they were for the program?" AA, "I think they tried.. But I wouldn't be sitting here if they tried harder.. I got an apology.. And a lot of the allegations were upheld.. Everybody has to be looked after so things like this don' t happen" VD, "You talk about rape and death threats" AA, "Over the last eight months, hundreds.. I had a credible death threat.. The police had to be called.. A bomb threat to my place of work.. Death threats to me, my family.. Rape threats to my 15 year old daughter" "I've got screenshots that I've sent to the Met police" VD, "Did you do the right thing speaking up?" AA, "Oh My God, yea.. All I did was ask the BBC to address inappropriate bad behaviour"

Farrukh

434,875 次观看 • 1 年前

A GRIEVING MOTHER FOUGHT THE BRITISH ESTABLISHMENT FOR 24 YEARS AND PROVED IT WRONG FROM THE GRAVE Kevin Williams was 15 when he died at Hillsborough on 15 April 1989. The original inquest ruled every single death happened by 3.15pm and refused to consider any evidence after that point. Convenient cutoff. It meant nobody ever had to explain why an ambulance never reached him, or whether he could have survived. His mother Anne Williams was not satisfied with convenient. She had medical evidence suggesting Kevin was alive well after the official cutoff. South Yorkshire Police had a simpler version of events, one that blamed dying fans for their own deaths and altered statements to fit it. So Anne spent the next two decades doing the job the police, the coroner, and the government should have done properly the first time. She set up Hope For Hillsborough, then chaired the Hillsborough Justice Campaign HJC Official. She petitioned the Attorney General three times. Over 118,000 people signed her call for a fresh inquest. The establishment's strategy was simple. Wait her out. It didn't work. In 2012 the Hillsborough Independent Panel confirmed what campaigners had said for years, the original verdicts were built on doctored evidence. The verdicts were quashed and a fresh inquest was ordered into all 96 deaths. Anne died of cancer in April 2013, two weeks before that fresh inquest began. She never lived to hear the 2016 verdict that all 96 were killed. Liverpool City Region Mayor Steve Rotheram Steve Rotheram, who has campaigned for a Hillsborough Law ever since, called her fight a symbol of unbreakable maternal love. BBC gave her a posthumous award later that year. A nice gesture, 24 years late. The lesson is not complicated. One mother with no legal training out-investigated a police force, a coroner, and most of Whitehall, just by refusing to accept a story that didn't add up. If the truth had been told in 1989, none of this would have been necessary. It wasn't, so she made them tell it anyway. Next time someone tells you to drop it and move on, think of Anne Williams. She didn't, and the country is still catching up to what she proved. Sources: The Guardian BBCNews Channel 4 News Liverpool Echo
2:10

A GRIEVING MOTHER FOUGHT THE BRITISH ESTABLISHMENT FOR 24 YEARS AND PROVED IT WRONG FROM THE GRAVE Kevin Williams was 15 when he died at Hillsborough on 15 April 1989. The original inquest ruled every single death happened by 3.15pm and refused to consider any evidence after that point. Convenient cutoff. It meant nobody ever had to explain why an ambulance never reached him, or whether he could have survived. His mother Anne Williams was not satisfied with convenient. She had medical evidence suggesting Kevin was alive well after the official cutoff. South Yorkshire Police had a simpler version of events, one that blamed dying fans for their own deaths and altered statements to fit it. So Anne spent the next two decades doing the job the police, the coroner, and the government should have done properly the first time. She set up Hope For Hillsborough, then chaired the Hillsborough Justice Campaign HJC Official. She petitioned the Attorney General three times. Over 118,000 people signed her call for a fresh inquest. The establishment's strategy was simple. Wait her out. It didn't work. In 2012 the Hillsborough Independent Panel confirmed what campaigners had said for years, the original verdicts were built on doctored evidence. The verdicts were quashed and a fresh inquest was ordered into all 96 deaths. Anne died of cancer in April 2013, two weeks before that fresh inquest began. She never lived to hear the 2016 verdict that all 96 were killed. Liverpool City Region Mayor Steve Rotheram Steve Rotheram, who has campaigned for a Hillsborough Law ever since, called her fight a symbol of unbreakable maternal love. BBC gave her a posthumous award later that year. A nice gesture, 24 years late. The lesson is not complicated. One mother with no legal training out-investigated a police force, a coroner, and most of Whitehall, just by refusing to accept a story that didn't add up. If the truth had been told in 1989, none of this would have been necessary. It wasn't, so she made them tell it anyway. Next time someone tells you to drop it and move on, think of Anne Williams. She didn't, and the country is still catching up to what she proved. Sources: The Guardian BBCNews Channel 4 News Liverpool Echo

Artur Nadolny

60,057 次观看 • 2 个月前

PT 2:- 40 days & 40 night upwards. Too busy to watch the 1hr18m video? read it. “Like as we are together now, I have her nudes everywhere on my phone. So if it’s true that both of you once had anything. Then you too must have something. Show me.” Odumodu to from Blaqbonez. Alas, Blaq said a lot persons have access to his phone, so he doesn’t keep stuffs like that for security reasons. OD insisted he showed proof. Prior, OD Blaq mentioned they were together in Ghana in July 2024. The girl said it’s a lie. Blaq tendered a geo-dated photo from Ghana. Then OD insisted it wasn’t enough evidence that he must show working: nudes. Blaq searched his phone found nothing. Called his Manager who booked the flights, she was unavailable. Then Blaq asked the girl to show OD their Snapchat media, cos she’s blocked him, if not he’d have checked himself. - “Liar! I didn’t block you on Snapchat.” She interjected. At this point OD and the lady were already together on the video call. Blaq then shared a similar incident where she lied about a real estate transaction and damaged a realtor’s career, telling OD that she’s practically lying with the same exact script. Blaq finally lucky, found a decent photo of himself & her. But it wasn’t a nude. Thus, the call ended. Later, OD called again, blasting insults. Blaq hung up. That evening the white elephant too called him practically mocking him at failing to sell his story to OD. Subsequently, OD turned Blaq to his religion, he spoke to Blaq before talking to God. Every day for 3 months between 6-8am, OD sends epistle of curses and threats. Till the matter got to Aso Rock, a top brass official mediated, got them to sign a peace accord. After signing, OD started cheering shaking his guys saying “we won we won”. Yet, OD continued. Blaq said, he wanted peace for so long, but he realized OD and the white elephant, were obsessed. He’s suing for harassment, defamation, and theft, and they must prove everything they accuse him of, particularly the rape allegations which was just introduced out of no where. Apparently, OD has been calling BBC, and show promoters asking them to blacklist Blaqbonez cos he’s a rapist. The girl too previously called OD’s manager yelling for minutes that she will end Blaq’s career. One time before a show, OD sent about 20 policemen with a coaster from Abuja to arrest Blaq. Luckily, he wasn’t home and had gone for rehearsals. The officers eventually spilled saying they are from Abuja, ordered to make sure Blaq didn’t perform. Then Blaq realized it had become a power game. This was how they landed in Aso rock. However, he later got a police invite. Confused, he decided to honor it earlier. He got there, they claimed, he ignored multiple invites, confused again. They detained him for the night over a cyberstalking petition. Which was odd, cos he’s the one on the receiving end of the cyberstalking, for about 3yrs now. Interestingly, the white elephant, came to see him at the station wearing his shirt she still had. Then Blaq again realized, it’s now both power and mind games = obsession. To the point that, OD arrested a banger boy thinking it was Blaq’s burner account and was pressuring the kid to implicate Blaq. At a boxing match in December 2024, OD snatched Blaq’s glasses, returned and yanked his neck chain, this constitutes the theft charges. Rufai Oseni tried to encourage peace, but acknowledged that Blaq had been pushed far. Blaq reiterated that, the case must and will end in court, and OD must pay for the damages. Our white elephant too, must pay for the damages. Incase of death, the deceased’s family will carry on the case. Quick Addition: Rufai struggled to understand the FWB term. And based on emerging details, the lady was apparently involved with both OD and Blaq since 2023. Follow Trending Explained for dailies.
0:40

Sensitive content

PT 2:- 40 days & 40 night upwards. Too busy to watch the 1hr18m video? read it. “Like as we are together now, I have her nudes everywhere on my phone. So if it’s true that both of you once had anything. Then you too must have something. Show me.” Odumodu to from Blaqbonez. Alas, Blaq said a lot persons have access to his phone, so he doesn’t keep stuffs like that for security reasons. OD insisted he showed proof. Prior, OD Blaq mentioned they were together in Ghana in July 2024. The girl said it’s a lie. Blaq tendered a geo-dated photo from Ghana. Then OD insisted it wasn’t enough evidence that he must show working: nudes. Blaq searched his phone found nothing. Called his Manager who booked the flights, she was unavailable. Then Blaq asked the girl to show OD their Snapchat media, cos she’s blocked him, if not he’d have checked himself. - “Liar! I didn’t block you on Snapchat.” She interjected. At this point OD and the lady were already together on the video call. Blaq then shared a similar incident where she lied about a real estate transaction and damaged a realtor’s career, telling OD that she’s practically lying with the same exact script. Blaq finally lucky, found a decent photo of himself & her. But it wasn’t a nude. Thus, the call ended. Later, OD called again, blasting insults. Blaq hung up. That evening the white elephant too called him practically mocking him at failing to sell his story to OD. Subsequently, OD turned Blaq to his religion, he spoke to Blaq before talking to God. Every day for 3 months between 6-8am, OD sends epistle of curses and threats. Till the matter got to Aso Rock, a top brass official mediated, got them to sign a peace accord. After signing, OD started cheering shaking his guys saying “we won we won”. Yet, OD continued. Blaq said, he wanted peace for so long, but he realized OD and the white elephant, were obsessed. He’s suing for harassment, defamation, and theft, and they must prove everything they accuse him of, particularly the rape allegations which was just introduced out of no where. Apparently, OD has been calling BBC, and show promoters asking them to blacklist Blaqbonez cos he’s a rapist. The girl too previously called OD’s manager yelling for minutes that she will end Blaq’s career. One time before a show, OD sent about 20 policemen with a coaster from Abuja to arrest Blaq. Luckily, he wasn’t home and had gone for rehearsals. The officers eventually spilled saying they are from Abuja, ordered to make sure Blaq didn’t perform. Then Blaq realized it had become a power game. This was how they landed in Aso rock. However, he later got a police invite. Confused, he decided to honor it earlier. He got there, they claimed, he ignored multiple invites, confused again. They detained him for the night over a cyberstalking petition. Which was odd, cos he’s the one on the receiving end of the cyberstalking, for about 3yrs now. Interestingly, the white elephant, came to see him at the station wearing his shirt she still had. Then Blaq again realized, it’s now both power and mind games = obsession. To the point that, OD arrested a banger boy thinking it was Blaq’s burner account and was pressuring the kid to implicate Blaq. At a boxing match in December 2024, OD snatched Blaq’s glasses, returned and yanked his neck chain, this constitutes the theft charges. Rufai Oseni tried to encourage peace, but acknowledged that Blaq had been pushed far. Blaq reiterated that, the case must and will end in court, and OD must pay for the damages. Our white elephant too, must pay for the damages. Incase of death, the deceased’s family will carry on the case. Quick Addition: Rufai struggled to understand the FWB term. And based on emerging details, the lady was apparently involved with both OD and Blaq since 2023. Follow Trending Explained for dailies.

Trending Explained

72,552 次观看 • 6 天前

I ask that you share this for the sake of all those still enduring political persecution as a result of January 6. This video shows not just my release from federal prison, after 3 years of being wrongfully incarcerated by the Biden-Harris regime and being misrepresented by propagandist journalists, but also the side of my life the world never saw before I was condemned. My name is Timothy Louis Hale-Cusanelli (aka Louis of Monmouth) and I'd like to tell you about my political persecution story. I grew up like many American millennials as a product of my time. I reveled in dark humor and absurdism, and in fact spent over 14 years crafting satire, engaging in method acting, aspiring to a career in comedy, and I was always the joker in my circle of friends growing up. But life wasn't all fun and games. I had sincerely held beliefs about duty and society. There was a kernel of structure within the chaos of my youth. That was the United States military, which I joined after highschool, while studying history and the social sciences. I've worked many jobs but I'd spent most of my adulthood serving the Department of Defense in one form or another. For 12 years, as an Army administrator or a Navy contractor, I pledged my loyalty to the United States of America. Due to a rough upbringing, I often describe myself as a recovering nihilist. Like most my age, I also drifted through life resenting a system that was at best broken and at worst corrupt. I never believed I had a true say in the fate of my nation. That was until President Donald J. Trump offered a true alternative to the political establishment. In 2016, for the first time in my life, I could say my vote mattered. Trump won. And since then I'd watched year after year as those in power have tried to destroy him. Before all the weaponized political prosecutions brought against him by the Biden-Harris regime, and before they attempted to shoot him in the head, they rigged the 2020 election. Why argue about it when we all know it's true? I went to DC on January 6 to hear a speech, hoping for the best possible outcome. I eventually made my way to the Capitol for what I thought was going to be a peaceful protest. I walked into a honeypot set up by the feds, was turned in by a confidant, and was framed as a morally deformed sociopath by the feds and the press. I was wrongly called a white supremacist, when I was from a mixed-race family. I was wrongly called a far-right extremist, when I ran a labor union. I was wrongly called a Nazi-sympathizer, when I was a shock jock. I was wrongly called a terrorist, when I worked for the United States government. And despite the fact that I never assaulted an officer, never damaged property, never stole anything from the Capitol, and never pre-planned anything for January 6 I was: -hunted down, denied bail and indicted -kept in solitary confinement for a year devoid of nutrition and sunlight -denied medical care, basic hygiene, religious services and family visitation -denied due process, lawyer visits and access to evidence -denied a fair and speedy trial, a jury of my peers or a change of venue -housed with Antifa and federal informants threatening to kill me and sabotage my criminal case -publicly smeared as a far-right extremist, insurrectionist and domestic terrorist Wondering how they got away with all this over trespassing or picketing? After 16 months of rotting behind bars I was finally convicted of 18 USC 1512, an Enron-era felony statute related to destruction of documents (which I hadn't done), not walking into the Capitol to protest (which I had done). No motion or argument would make the Honorable Court see the nonsensical application of the law in my case. I was sentenced to 4 years in prison, over twice my federal sentencing guidelines. I endured all this for 3 years, and I would've spent more time behind bars had it not been for President Trump's First Step Act. But my battle didn't end with prison. I filed an appeal which still hasn't been answered years after my conviction in early 2022. But there was a chance for relief... This year SCOTUS ruled that 18 USC 1512 didn't apply to January 6 defendants. I spent 3 years behind bars for at best misdemeanor conduct. My life was destroyed for a felony that for all intents and purposes doesn't exist. I lost my home, my career, my uniform, my freedom, and worst - I was made a patsy by those who control the levers of power and was used as a weapon to hurt President Trump. SCOTUS' decision was a victory, yes? No. I and everyone wrongfully convicted of this statute should be totally exonerated. And there is confirmation that some defendants are having their 1512 convictions vacated and ongoing prosecutions for 1512 are being dropped. This is not universal, however. This will not apply... to me. I was recently informed of a deal being offered to me by the prosecutors at the DOJ. In exchange for dropping my appeal that's been pending for years, the DOJ would agree to drop my conviction for 1512. I turned this offer down. Why? Because the higher ups in the Department of Justice plan to recharge me for 1512 under a different trial theory. The DOJ refuses to provide a guarantee that I won't be re-prosecuted all over again. I knew this was coming. They've failed to return my property in over 3 years because there's an "open investigation" long after I've already been convicted and served my sentence. They've refused to commit to dropping my supervised release conditions, so I can travel freely, after having already served a sentence for a felony I never should've been charged with. They've not made an effort to lift a fraudulent lien they've put against me despite having made consistent restitution payments every month. And this goes without saying, but I've absolutely not been apologized to for having been framed, for having had my public and private lives torn apart for a media narrative, and for having lost years of my life due to malicious prosecution over a fake felony charge. If I took the DOJ's deal, they'd drop my 1512 conviction based on the SCOTUS ruling, then prosecute me for 1512 using a different trial theory, and take me back to trial even knowing I can't legally serve more time in prison even if convicted of 1512 again. By choosing not to take this deal I am preserving my appeal, which will be pending for another half a year, and my 1512 will likely be dropped by the appellate court. If not, I could still be prosecuted again if the next administration doesn't drop the charges. Knowing I'll be prosecuted whether I take the deal or not, I'm refusing to bend the knee and I'm making the feds work for the last pound of flesh I have to give. I will be the first January 6 defendant wrongfully convicted of 18 USC 1512 to be prosecuted for 1512 all over again. It has all come down to this. The ultimate gambit. For the redress of a generation. I take up the gauntlet thrown down by the cowardly bastards in charge of the Department of Justice. I defy this corrupt administration, and I maintain my resolve. Not one step back. No deal, burn in Hell. I'm in this to win. The feds and their media sycophants are going to learn the hard way that they can't smear me into submission. My name is Timothy Louis Hale-Cusanelli... Comedian. Polymath. Soldier. Political Prisoner DC-DOC 376441 / BOP 25995-509 Real Cynthia Hughes Eagle Ed Martin Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 Geri Perna 🇺🇸 🎗Cajun_Queen43🎗 Official Cowboy Logic / Donna Fiducia David Pollack Rob Maness Radix Verum ☦︎ Nicole Reffitt @Mink_Badison Montana Siniff Kash Lee Kelly Shawn Farash Paul Ingrassia Alan Jacoby Mike Crispi Jeff Clark 🇺🇸FormerFedsGroup.Com🇺🇸 The Lectern Guy🇺🇸 Brad Geyer Brandon Straka #WalkAway OHNavyMom Sara Radovanovitch
0:54

I ask that you share this for the sake of all those still enduring political persecution as a result of January 6. This video shows not just my release from federal prison, after 3 years of being wrongfully incarcerated by the Biden-Harris regime and being misrepresented by propagandist journalists, but also the side of my life the world never saw before I was condemned. My name is Timothy Louis Hale-Cusanelli (aka Louis of Monmouth) and I'd like to tell you about my political persecution story. I grew up like many American millennials as a product of my time. I reveled in dark humor and absurdism, and in fact spent over 14 years crafting satire, engaging in method acting, aspiring to a career in comedy, and I was always the joker in my circle of friends growing up. But life wasn't all fun and games. I had sincerely held beliefs about duty and society. There was a kernel of structure within the chaos of my youth. That was the United States military, which I joined after highschool, while studying history and the social sciences. I've worked many jobs but I'd spent most of my adulthood serving the Department of Defense in one form or another. For 12 years, as an Army administrator or a Navy contractor, I pledged my loyalty to the United States of America. Due to a rough upbringing, I often describe myself as a recovering nihilist. Like most my age, I also drifted through life resenting a system that was at best broken and at worst corrupt. I never believed I had a true say in the fate of my nation. That was until President Donald J. Trump offered a true alternative to the political establishment. In 2016, for the first time in my life, I could say my vote mattered. Trump won. And since then I'd watched year after year as those in power have tried to destroy him. Before all the weaponized political prosecutions brought against him by the Biden-Harris regime, and before they attempted to shoot him in the head, they rigged the 2020 election. Why argue about it when we all know it's true? I went to DC on January 6 to hear a speech, hoping for the best possible outcome. I eventually made my way to the Capitol for what I thought was going to be a peaceful protest. I walked into a honeypot set up by the feds, was turned in by a confidant, and was framed as a morally deformed sociopath by the feds and the press. I was wrongly called a white supremacist, when I was from a mixed-race family. I was wrongly called a far-right extremist, when I ran a labor union. I was wrongly called a Nazi-sympathizer, when I was a shock jock. I was wrongly called a terrorist, when I worked for the United States government. And despite the fact that I never assaulted an officer, never damaged property, never stole anything from the Capitol, and never pre-planned anything for January 6 I was: -hunted down, denied bail and indicted -kept in solitary confinement for a year devoid of nutrition and sunlight -denied medical care, basic hygiene, religious services and family visitation -denied due process, lawyer visits and access to evidence -denied a fair and speedy trial, a jury of my peers or a change of venue -housed with Antifa and federal informants threatening to kill me and sabotage my criminal case -publicly smeared as a far-right extremist, insurrectionist and domestic terrorist Wondering how they got away with all this over trespassing or picketing? After 16 months of rotting behind bars I was finally convicted of 18 USC 1512, an Enron-era felony statute related to destruction of documents (which I hadn't done), not walking into the Capitol to protest (which I had done). No motion or argument would make the Honorable Court see the nonsensical application of the law in my case. I was sentenced to 4 years in prison, over twice my federal sentencing guidelines. I endured all this for 3 years, and I would've spent more time behind bars had it not been for President Trump's First Step Act. But my battle didn't end with prison. I filed an appeal which still hasn't been answered years after my conviction in early 2022. But there was a chance for relief... This year SCOTUS ruled that 18 USC 1512 didn't apply to January 6 defendants. I spent 3 years behind bars for at best misdemeanor conduct. My life was destroyed for a felony that for all intents and purposes doesn't exist. I lost my home, my career, my uniform, my freedom, and worst - I was made a patsy by those who control the levers of power and was used as a weapon to hurt President Trump. SCOTUS' decision was a victory, yes? No. I and everyone wrongfully convicted of this statute should be totally exonerated. And there is confirmation that some defendants are having their 1512 convictions vacated and ongoing prosecutions for 1512 are being dropped. This is not universal, however. This will not apply... to me. I was recently informed of a deal being offered to me by the prosecutors at the DOJ. In exchange for dropping my appeal that's been pending for years, the DOJ would agree to drop my conviction for 1512. I turned this offer down. Why? Because the higher ups in the Department of Justice plan to recharge me for 1512 under a different trial theory. The DOJ refuses to provide a guarantee that I won't be re-prosecuted all over again. I knew this was coming. They've failed to return my property in over 3 years because there's an "open investigation" long after I've already been convicted and served my sentence. They've refused to commit to dropping my supervised release conditions, so I can travel freely, after having already served a sentence for a felony I never should've been charged with. They've not made an effort to lift a fraudulent lien they've put against me despite having made consistent restitution payments every month. And this goes without saying, but I've absolutely not been apologized to for having been framed, for having had my public and private lives torn apart for a media narrative, and for having lost years of my life due to malicious prosecution over a fake felony charge. If I took the DOJ's deal, they'd drop my 1512 conviction based on the SCOTUS ruling, then prosecute me for 1512 using a different trial theory, and take me back to trial even knowing I can't legally serve more time in prison even if convicted of 1512 again. By choosing not to take this deal I am preserving my appeal, which will be pending for another half a year, and my 1512 will likely be dropped by the appellate court. If not, I could still be prosecuted again if the next administration doesn't drop the charges. Knowing I'll be prosecuted whether I take the deal or not, I'm refusing to bend the knee and I'm making the feds work for the last pound of flesh I have to give. I will be the first January 6 defendant wrongfully convicted of 18 USC 1512 to be prosecuted for 1512 all over again. It has all come down to this. The ultimate gambit. For the redress of a generation. I take up the gauntlet thrown down by the cowardly bastards in charge of the Department of Justice. I defy this corrupt administration, and I maintain my resolve. Not one step back. No deal, burn in Hell. I'm in this to win. The feds and their media sycophants are going to learn the hard way that they can't smear me into submission. My name is Timothy Louis Hale-Cusanelli... Comedian. Polymath. Soldier. Political Prisoner DC-DOC 376441 / BOP 25995-509 Real Cynthia Hughes Eagle Ed Martin Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 Geri Perna 🇺🇸 🎗Cajun_Queen43🎗 Official Cowboy Logic / Donna Fiducia David Pollack Rob Maness Radix Verum ☦︎ Nicole Reffitt @Mink_Badison Montana Siniff Kash Lee Kelly Shawn Farash Paul Ingrassia Alan Jacoby Mike Crispi Jeff Clark 🇺🇸FormerFedsGroup.Com🇺🇸 The Lectern Guy🇺🇸 Brad Geyer Brandon Straka #WalkAway OHNavyMom Sara Radovanovitch

Tim Hale - Criminally Funny J6er

65,394 次观看 • 1 年前

Jewish writer and activist James Schneider James Schneider explains why pro-Palestinian marches should not be banned in light of the horrific Golders Green attack, "First of all, if you're thinking about keeping Jewish people safe, which should be a priority, the focus should be on the policing that is going to do that" "Canceling other people's right to protest isn't going to keep a single person safe" "The marches are not a threat to Jewish people" "There's not been a single arrest for any violence towards any Jewish people" Ranvir Singh, "Not violence, but language, slogans, pictures of paragliders being pinned to people's jackets that has been picked up. And that is offensive, is it not? And frightening" James Schneider, "Offensive and frightening. Some people may find it offensive and some people may find that frightening, but that does not mean that those are a risk to Jewish people" "And again, let's focus on what should the state's priorities be" "You've got a pretty small area of London that has seen repeated attacks over the recent weeks, and yet the response to this is not how are we going to stop these attacks?" "Who are the people who might, uh, might, you know, possibly have been referred to prevent that? We should be, uh, looking at" "Instead, we still have a state pursuing, uh, terrorist cases against 2,700 peaceful protesters for holding up signs with seven word placards and trying to shut down supporting Palestine Action" "For supporting the group that was then prescribed" "Peaceful protesters holding up placards, no threat to Jewish people" "And then trying to cancel the annual Nakba Day protest while at the same time a Tommy Robinson protest will be, will be fine to carry on, which poses absolutely no threat to Jewish people" "The ones that I know about are the 35 major national marches that have taken place, uh, since October 2023 in central London" "And my understanding is that one of those was near a synagogue, because the synagogue is near the BBC" "And it was meant to start. That protest was meant to start at the BBC or end at the BBC. I can't remember which one. That was not deliberately trying to" "There was no protest at a synagogue. There's not an attempt to protest a synagogue" "And, uh, in all 35 of those national marches, there's not been a single arrest for any activity that's happened anywhere near a Synagogue" *Lord Man says some divisive stuff* Kate Garraway, "James, your response" James Schneider, "I mean, they're flatly not true" "The point about targeting synagogues is flatly not true" "The idea that there's a dominant group that has been calling for support for terrorism and attacks on Jews. Kate Garraway, "He said a small group" James Schneider, "He said dominant though" Ranvir Singh, "He said Small" James Schneider, "Small but dominant" "Right, So a dominant group is supposedly calling for uh, support for terrorism and attacks uh, on Jews" "Flatly untrue" "We need to keep Jewish people safe" "Saying flat lies about people who are protesting British state policy is not going to keep Jewish people safe" Kate Garraway, "Can I let Lord Man come back on that? Is that untrue?" *Lord Man says some more divisive stuff* James Schneider,, I find everything he's saying particularly, but I also interested in who the so called extremists were that they were keeping out of the uh, anti apartheid protest given at the time the British state said that the ANC and Nelson Mandela were terrorists" "So I do find that uh, a kind of baffling replay of uh, of history"
4:10

Jewish writer and activist James Schneider James Schneider explains why pro-Palestinian marches should not be banned in light of the horrific Golders Green attack, "First of all, if you're thinking about keeping Jewish people safe, which should be a priority, the focus should be on the policing that is going to do that" "Canceling other people's right to protest isn't going to keep a single person safe" "The marches are not a threat to Jewish people" "There's not been a single arrest for any violence towards any Jewish people" Ranvir Singh, "Not violence, but language, slogans, pictures of paragliders being pinned to people's jackets that has been picked up. And that is offensive, is it not? And frightening" James Schneider, "Offensive and frightening. Some people may find it offensive and some people may find that frightening, but that does not mean that those are a risk to Jewish people" "And again, let's focus on what should the state's priorities be" "You've got a pretty small area of London that has seen repeated attacks over the recent weeks, and yet the response to this is not how are we going to stop these attacks?" "Who are the people who might, uh, might, you know, possibly have been referred to prevent that? We should be, uh, looking at" "Instead, we still have a state pursuing, uh, terrorist cases against 2,700 peaceful protesters for holding up signs with seven word placards and trying to shut down supporting Palestine Action" "For supporting the group that was then prescribed" "Peaceful protesters holding up placards, no threat to Jewish people" "And then trying to cancel the annual Nakba Day protest while at the same time a Tommy Robinson protest will be, will be fine to carry on, which poses absolutely no threat to Jewish people" "The ones that I know about are the 35 major national marches that have taken place, uh, since October 2023 in central London" "And my understanding is that one of those was near a synagogue, because the synagogue is near the BBC" "And it was meant to start. That protest was meant to start at the BBC or end at the BBC. I can't remember which one. That was not deliberately trying to" "There was no protest at a synagogue. There's not an attempt to protest a synagogue" "And, uh, in all 35 of those national marches, there's not been a single arrest for any activity that's happened anywhere near a Synagogue" *Lord Man says some divisive stuff* Kate Garraway, "James, your response" James Schneider, "I mean, they're flatly not true" "The point about targeting synagogues is flatly not true" "The idea that there's a dominant group that has been calling for support for terrorism and attacks on Jews. Kate Garraway, "He said a small group" James Schneider, "He said dominant though" Ranvir Singh, "He said Small" James Schneider, "Small but dominant" "Right, So a dominant group is supposedly calling for uh, support for terrorism and attacks uh, on Jews" "Flatly untrue" "We need to keep Jewish people safe" "Saying flat lies about people who are protesting British state policy is not going to keep Jewish people safe" Kate Garraway, "Can I let Lord Man come back on that? Is that untrue?" *Lord Man says some more divisive stuff* James Schneider,, I find everything he's saying particularly, but I also interested in who the so called extremists were that they were keeping out of the uh, anti apartheid protest given at the time the British state said that the ANC and Nelson Mandela were terrorists" "So I do find that uh, a kind of baffling replay of uh, of history"

Farrukh

216,772 次观看 • 3 个月前

Dear World, We all saw and heard Imran Khan’s sons yesterday in Mario Nawfal’s vlog. I am attaching the video here in case you haven’t seen or heard it yet. Please understand this man is being prosecuted illegally for over two years now. He has literally given his whole life to Pakistan…fighting the mafia in Pakistan & the rest of the world. Most concerning right now is the polygraph test which Imran Khan is being forced to take today in Pakistan. Asim Munir’s grandma friend Maryam Nawaz Sharif has acquired court permission from the Banana Republic of current Pakistan to do this test since she wants to push Imran Khan towards a military trial. They want to find any excuse “fast” to try to get rid of him. See, while the world was being duped along with the citizens of Pakistan and India about a war, the dictators who have hijacked the two countries aka Modi and Asim Munir decided to attack own citizens and keep them focused on the war while some other matters were taken care of. For now, I will only focus on the matters pertaining to Pakistan… 1. The “fauj” aka army got a chance to become heroes again by showing off how the Pakistan Air Force succeeded and army took the credit. It was important for them since people were angry at them after they had killed their own citizens on November 26th during #IslamabadMassacre 2. Military trials for civilians ruling was passed in the courts while at the same time asking all the civilians to support the very same “fauj” aka army which was taking away those rights. What can people do? 1. People should gather in mass numbers outside the court today to show support for Imran Khan (and his family). This should include all the international media which possibly can make it there. 2. An immediate appeal should be put in system asking for this prehistoric law to be thrown in trash. 3. All fundraisers for Shaukat Khanum, Namal and all other Imran Khan initiated projects need to be stopped. It is very clear even that money is making it into the corrupt hands. How can it not when the whole country including each and every bank is hijacked?! No money should be raised until Imran Khan is released. 4. People should boycott the whole system by closing shops and businesses until Asim Munir resigns. 5. Stop all overseas remittances immediately until we get Imran Khan out of the jail. 6. Spread the interview of Imran Khan ‘s sons everywhere. 6. Request other international media to interview them. 7. Also request International media be a part of all court proceedings for Imran Khan’s trials. 8. Request President Donald J. Trump & First Lady Melania Trump to meet Imran Khan’s sons as they have requested in their interview attached below. 9. Create own short clips asking for Imran Khan’s release. Feel free to wear a mask if that helps you. 10. Do not give up! 💪🏼 & Have faith from beginning to the end! 🤲🏼 We need to unite and remember that Khan Sahab called each and everyone of us leaders. Be a leader and do what needs to be done! Jemima Goldsmith Kasim Khan Mario Nawfal The Economist The Times and Sunday Times The New York Times The Intercept Al Jazeera English CTV News BBC Breaking News The Australian MSNBC Congressman Greg Casar Joe Wilson Richard Grenell Donald J. Trump Marco Rubio George Galloway Steve Hanke Cornel West Dr. Jill Stein🌻 MELANIA TRUMP First Lady Melania Trump President Donald J. Trump #WeAreTheChange #ReleaseImranKhanNow
45:28

Dear World, We all saw and heard Imran Khan’s sons yesterday in Mario Nawfal’s vlog. I am attaching the video here in case you haven’t seen or heard it yet. Please understand this man is being prosecuted illegally for over two years now. He has literally given his whole life to Pakistan…fighting the mafia in Pakistan & the rest of the world. Most concerning right now is the polygraph test which Imran Khan is being forced to take today in Pakistan. Asim Munir’s grandma friend Maryam Nawaz Sharif has acquired court permission from the Banana Republic of current Pakistan to do this test since she wants to push Imran Khan towards a military trial. They want to find any excuse “fast” to try to get rid of him. See, while the world was being duped along with the citizens of Pakistan and India about a war, the dictators who have hijacked the two countries aka Modi and Asim Munir decided to attack own citizens and keep them focused on the war while some other matters were taken care of. For now, I will only focus on the matters pertaining to Pakistan… 1. The “fauj” aka army got a chance to become heroes again by showing off how the Pakistan Air Force succeeded and army took the credit. It was important for them since people were angry at them after they had killed their own citizens on November 26th during #IslamabadMassacre 2. Military trials for civilians ruling was passed in the courts while at the same time asking all the civilians to support the very same “fauj” aka army which was taking away those rights. What can people do? 1. People should gather in mass numbers outside the court today to show support for Imran Khan (and his family). This should include all the international media which possibly can make it there. 2. An immediate appeal should be put in system asking for this prehistoric law to be thrown in trash. 3. All fundraisers for Shaukat Khanum, Namal and all other Imran Khan initiated projects need to be stopped. It is very clear even that money is making it into the corrupt hands. How can it not when the whole country including each and every bank is hijacked?! No money should be raised until Imran Khan is released. 4. People should boycott the whole system by closing shops and businesses until Asim Munir resigns. 5. Stop all overseas remittances immediately until we get Imran Khan out of the jail. 6. Spread the interview of Imran Khan ‘s sons everywhere. 6. Request other international media to interview them. 7. Also request International media be a part of all court proceedings for Imran Khan’s trials. 8. Request President Donald J. Trump & First Lady Melania Trump to meet Imran Khan’s sons as they have requested in their interview attached below. 9. Create own short clips asking for Imran Khan’s release. Feel free to wear a mask if that helps you. 10. Do not give up! 💪🏼 & Have faith from beginning to the end! 🤲🏼 We need to unite and remember that Khan Sahab called each and everyone of us leaders. Be a leader and do what needs to be done! Jemima Goldsmith Kasim Khan Mario Nawfal The Economist The Times and Sunday Times The New York Times The Intercept Al Jazeera English CTV News BBC Breaking News The Australian MSNBC Congressman Greg Casar Joe Wilson Richard Grenell Donald J. Trump Marco Rubio George Galloway Steve Hanke Cornel West Dr. Jill Stein🌻 MELANIA TRUMP First Lady Melania Trump President Donald J. Trump #WeAreTheChange #ReleaseImranKhanNow

Uzma Rahat Saeed

145,506 次观看 • 1 年前

how I’m building fractl for a $10M exit in 6 months, so I can produce my dream musical 🎤🎬 I don't know how 🤷🏼‍♀️ That's what the show is about ha. Figuring it out, in real time. Wish me luck lol fractl's new docu-series ‘‘The Crypto Hustle’ launches feb 26. Final-fucking-ly. thank you Superteam Canada & Solana for the funding and for making Episode 1 possible 🥰 For those of you who are new here, hiiii 🙋🏼‍♀️ my name is Rime Salmi, I'm an artist who accidentally built the biggest investor network in web3. And now we're producing a 12 episode documentary about how I'm working my way back to being an artist, with funding. the origin story. when I crashed with the last crypto cycle, back to zero (plus tax) at my grown age, I had to ask myself what the hell I was gonna do with my life. I always just wanted be an artist. With agency. So i worked and paid for everything, studio, music videos, started a record label, all that to keep my artistic freedom, for my entire career. Had some success, lots of failed experiments, lots of tears, and lots of fun. After I lost everything to the terra luna crash (mistakes were made 🥲), I had to figure out how I would fund the dream next. I needed a break from the emotional roller coaster of trading crypto, so I went back to school for the grant money (thank you government of Canada). I relocated to madrid for a change, and started making tiktoks. Skits that I thought were funny. Skits that i thought were risky but honest and necessary. I’ve always loved saying out loud what others are ashamed to even think 🤓 if you follow me on ig or tt you know ha I was having a blast. Creating all day. Some tiktoks took off. Ones that felt very personal. I felt seen. I was at my happiest, filming, editing, singing and pretending to listen in class, for the grant money. Then it hit me. That's what i want. I wanna be telling stories. I dont wanna be just a singer, just a songwriter, just an actress waiting for auditions to come my way. I wanna do it all, tell more stories, write and produce them. so…A musical? But I hate musicals 😭 why do they start singing in the middle of a conversation?!? whyyyyy A musical for people who don't like musicals??!!! 🥹 That’s it!! A MUSICAL FOR PEOPLE WHO DONT LIKE MUSICALS 🤩 DONE. So from the lowest of my finances, in the middle of career confusion, with a bruised ego from failing so miserably at my first crypto cycle, I found something great to get excited about for the rest of my life. I needed to validate the feasibility… because I know I’m a dreamer who gets shit done, but I’m very much a idealist. so I asked my good friend of mine and the producer of my first 2 albums Benny Adam (now a rising star, this is me clout chasing) for advice. I asked him: ‘is this too much? For me to wanna produce a whole as* Netflix series, music and all?? He’s the most talented, ambitious yet realistic guy I know. And I knew he would tell it to me like it is, but kindly. Because he’s also a nice human 🫶🏽 ‘So?? Is it too big of a project??’ He paused… I looked at him, hopeful 🥹 ‘Ya. It’s a reeeally big project 😕’, he said. Fuck. and then he paused, again. Just tell me, I thought. Tell me aaaall the reasons this is a bad idea… 😞 beat. ‘But if anyone can do it, it’s you’ cue inspiring battle field music Reeeallyyyyy? 🥹 I teared up. I’m tearing up now writing this. Because at that low point in my life, that’s what I needed. Just one person who really knew me, to remind me, despite my circumstances, of who I am and what I’m capable of. That I’m crazy, yes, but in a good way 👉🏽👈🏽 Shokran Benny. I don’t think you know how much that meant to me (I’m gonna tell him again because he’s on episode 4 of the Crypto Hustle ha) Ok. So. Musical it is. When I ran out of back-to-school government money, and needed to be an adult again, I reintegrated the crypto space, with a purpose. I called my friend and mentor Armando Pantoja and asked him what he thought I should go for in terms of job (I needed a break from entrepreneurship). He said ‘I’ve seen you at conferences, you’re really good with people, you know marketing, and you actually understand crypto. He said go to conferences, you’ll figure it out. Just show up’ I did. I showed up to eth denver 2022 and I started the first iteration of what became fractl as an influencer marketing agency, because I saw a good skill-market fit and because I couldn't find a job lol but I hated it. I dont wanna manage influencers, I don't wanna manage artists. I’m an artist, I would never manage me, that's crazy 😂 One thing led to the other I became a fractional CMO. An opinionated one 🤓 I found myself always trying to lead founders towards personal storytelling… suggesting they put themselves out there more. I really believed that it would help them build trust in a space that so desperately needs it. Then, I started hosting our investor events (to get leads for the agency), and saw the struggle of founders building and fundraising at the same time and the original idea for this show started to form. We need bolder marketing in this space. What if we followed these founders around the world at all these conferences and followed their journey, building a company, raising, launching a token, failing. In these ruthless markets, with the drama of personal sacrifices… I could see it so clearly 😃 So I started pitching it. THE BEST MARKETING CAMPAIGN EVER GUYS!! WHO'S IN?? No one. I couldn't convince a single founder of the vision.🥲 Maybe I wasn’t qualified enough in their eyes to carry out such a big vision, following multiple founders on a 6 month production around the world. They were probably right lol But I’m also a little crazy. And really really stubborn. That's something right?? A few months later, inspiration still strong, I told pablo erminy who's worked on multiple Netflix shows about it and he said: ‘why dont you just tell YOUR story? You have a great story, people will wanna watch you build in public to fund your artist dream. As a first reality tv production, one story is more than enough to handle.’ Wise man. Maybe i did underestimate how complex a multi-lead, international, real-time, film production would be 😬 Done. because I know great advice when I hear it. PIVOT! 🛋️ So that’s how ’The Crypto Hustle’ was born. This journey I was trying to sell to other founders, I would do it for myself. show not tell. Now the funding. I tried selling the project to sponsors on and off for over a year, between the normal fractl operations, hiring, training, firing, messing up, learning. And only ended up spreading myself so thin, that I neglected the core business. Company became a mess (for others reasons too, that I will come up on the show, hint: boys) Bottom line is, we lost more money than we made, trying to sell a show. I should've known. Film fundraising is a producer’s full time job lol Fast forward 1 year, 2 pilots and a near bankruptcy later, I’m now launching Episode 1 from Korea and just wrapping episode 2 from Hong Kong. No funding. (except for Episode 1, thank you again Superteam Canada 🥰) Fuck it. Might not be the big production I had envisioned, but all the core principles and the emotions, and team talent is there.. An MVP. Now. because waiting for things to align would just delay this indefinitely. And because I have more conviction than ever. not only in authentic storytelling as the best marketing, but also because my soul needs this. I need creativity to keep going. If i stay too long in business mode without publishing art, stories, songs, dances, funny skits, I find no reason to wake up in the morning. Not to be dramatic, but I really only wanna be an artist 😂 Also, the timing IS ideal. because in my mess, I got lucky 🥰 I found a production team that felt right instantly. Love at first meeting. not only are they aligned with the docu-series concept, but with the end vision too. The cultural impact I wanna have with the musical. vegetable Badr, Momo, @JuicySocialAgency, you're my favorite part of 2026 🫶🏽 So here we are. About to launch episode 1. Documenting the process of building fractl for a $10M exit in 6 MONTHS, so i can produce my dream musical 🥰 It’s about to be epic. Or a massive failure, in public. can girl with the pink hair make this happen? 👀 let the adventure begin 💚☺️ full episodes will be on my youtube channel. go subscribe ok?
0:51

how I’m building fractl for a $10M exit in 6 months, so I can produce my dream musical 🎤🎬 I don't know how 🤷🏼‍♀️ That's what the show is about ha. Figuring it out, in real time. Wish me luck lol fractl's new docu-series ‘‘The Crypto Hustle’ launches feb 26. Final-fucking-ly. thank you Superteam Canada & Solana for the funding and for making Episode 1 possible 🥰 For those of you who are new here, hiiii 🙋🏼‍♀️ my name is Rime Salmi, I'm an artist who accidentally built the biggest investor network in web3. And now we're producing a 12 episode documentary about how I'm working my way back to being an artist, with funding. the origin story. when I crashed with the last crypto cycle, back to zero (plus tax) at my grown age, I had to ask myself what the hell I was gonna do with my life. I always just wanted be an artist. With agency. So i worked and paid for everything, studio, music videos, started a record label, all that to keep my artistic freedom, for my entire career. Had some success, lots of failed experiments, lots of tears, and lots of fun. After I lost everything to the terra luna crash (mistakes were made 🥲), I had to figure out how I would fund the dream next. I needed a break from the emotional roller coaster of trading crypto, so I went back to school for the grant money (thank you government of Canada). I relocated to madrid for a change, and started making tiktoks. Skits that I thought were funny. Skits that i thought were risky but honest and necessary. I’ve always loved saying out loud what others are ashamed to even think 🤓 if you follow me on ig or tt you know ha I was having a blast. Creating all day. Some tiktoks took off. Ones that felt very personal. I felt seen. I was at my happiest, filming, editing, singing and pretending to listen in class, for the grant money. Then it hit me. That's what i want. I wanna be telling stories. I dont wanna be just a singer, just a songwriter, just an actress waiting for auditions to come my way. I wanna do it all, tell more stories, write and produce them. so…A musical? But I hate musicals 😭 why do they start singing in the middle of a conversation?!? whyyyyy A musical for people who don't like musicals??!!! 🥹 That’s it!! A MUSICAL FOR PEOPLE WHO DONT LIKE MUSICALS 🤩 DONE. So from the lowest of my finances, in the middle of career confusion, with a bruised ego from failing so miserably at my first crypto cycle, I found something great to get excited about for the rest of my life. I needed to validate the feasibility… because I know I’m a dreamer who gets shit done, but I’m very much a idealist. so I asked my good friend of mine and the producer of my first 2 albums Benny Adam (now a rising star, this is me clout chasing) for advice. I asked him: ‘is this too much? For me to wanna produce a whole as* Netflix series, music and all?? He’s the most talented, ambitious yet realistic guy I know. And I knew he would tell it to me like it is, but kindly. Because he’s also a nice human 🫶🏽 ‘So?? Is it too big of a project??’ He paused… I looked at him, hopeful 🥹 ‘Ya. It’s a reeeally big project 😕’, he said. Fuck. and then he paused, again. Just tell me, I thought. Tell me aaaall the reasons this is a bad idea… 😞 beat. ‘But if anyone can do it, it’s you’ cue inspiring battle field music Reeeallyyyyy? 🥹 I teared up. I’m tearing up now writing this. Because at that low point in my life, that’s what I needed. Just one person who really knew me, to remind me, despite my circumstances, of who I am and what I’m capable of. That I’m crazy, yes, but in a good way 👉🏽👈🏽 Shokran Benny. I don’t think you know how much that meant to me (I’m gonna tell him again because he’s on episode 4 of the Crypto Hustle ha) Ok. So. Musical it is. When I ran out of back-to-school government money, and needed to be an adult again, I reintegrated the crypto space, with a purpose. I called my friend and mentor Armando Pantoja and asked him what he thought I should go for in terms of job (I needed a break from entrepreneurship). He said ‘I’ve seen you at conferences, you’re really good with people, you know marketing, and you actually understand crypto. He said go to conferences, you’ll figure it out. Just show up’ I did. I showed up to eth denver 2022 and I started the first iteration of what became fractl as an influencer marketing agency, because I saw a good skill-market fit and because I couldn't find a job lol but I hated it. I dont wanna manage influencers, I don't wanna manage artists. I’m an artist, I would never manage me, that's crazy 😂 One thing led to the other I became a fractional CMO. An opinionated one 🤓 I found myself always trying to lead founders towards personal storytelling… suggesting they put themselves out there more. I really believed that it would help them build trust in a space that so desperately needs it. Then, I started hosting our investor events (to get leads for the agency), and saw the struggle of founders building and fundraising at the same time and the original idea for this show started to form. We need bolder marketing in this space. What if we followed these founders around the world at all these conferences and followed their journey, building a company, raising, launching a token, failing. In these ruthless markets, with the drama of personal sacrifices… I could see it so clearly 😃 So I started pitching it. THE BEST MARKETING CAMPAIGN EVER GUYS!! WHO'S IN?? No one. I couldn't convince a single founder of the vision.🥲 Maybe I wasn’t qualified enough in their eyes to carry out such a big vision, following multiple founders on a 6 month production around the world. They were probably right lol But I’m also a little crazy. And really really stubborn. That's something right?? A few months later, inspiration still strong, I told pablo erminy who's worked on multiple Netflix shows about it and he said: ‘why dont you just tell YOUR story? You have a great story, people will wanna watch you build in public to fund your artist dream. As a first reality tv production, one story is more than enough to handle.’ Wise man. Maybe i did underestimate how complex a multi-lead, international, real-time, film production would be 😬 Done. because I know great advice when I hear it. PIVOT! 🛋️ So that’s how ’The Crypto Hustle’ was born. This journey I was trying to sell to other founders, I would do it for myself. show not tell. Now the funding. I tried selling the project to sponsors on and off for over a year, between the normal fractl operations, hiring, training, firing, messing up, learning. And only ended up spreading myself so thin, that I neglected the core business. Company became a mess (for others reasons too, that I will come up on the show, hint: boys) Bottom line is, we lost more money than we made, trying to sell a show. I should've known. Film fundraising is a producer’s full time job lol Fast forward 1 year, 2 pilots and a near bankruptcy later, I’m now launching Episode 1 from Korea and just wrapping episode 2 from Hong Kong. No funding. (except for Episode 1, thank you again Superteam Canada 🥰) Fuck it. Might not be the big production I had envisioned, but all the core principles and the emotions, and team talent is there.. An MVP. Now. because waiting for things to align would just delay this indefinitely. And because I have more conviction than ever. not only in authentic storytelling as the best marketing, but also because my soul needs this. I need creativity to keep going. If i stay too long in business mode without publishing art, stories, songs, dances, funny skits, I find no reason to wake up in the morning. Not to be dramatic, but I really only wanna be an artist 😂 Also, the timing IS ideal. because in my mess, I got lucky 🥰 I found a production team that felt right instantly. Love at first meeting. not only are they aligned with the docu-series concept, but with the end vision too. The cultural impact I wanna have with the musical. vegetable Badr, Momo, @JuicySocialAgency, you're my favorite part of 2026 🫶🏽 So here we are. About to launch episode 1. Documenting the process of building fractl for a $10M exit in 6 MONTHS, so i can produce my dream musical 🥰 It’s about to be epic. Or a massive failure, in public. can girl with the pink hair make this happen? 👀 let the adventure begin 💚☺️ full episodes will be on my youtube channel. go subscribe ok?

🌸 Rime Salmi 🌸

10,291 次观看 • 6 个月前

BOOM!!! 💥💥💥 Dr. Aseem Malhotra's testimony was delivered in the Helsinski District Court on April 12, 2024, with the understanding that any deviation from the truth would constitute perjury. This clip was immediately banned by YouTube so please share widely. I've trimmed the clip, removing the interpreter's segment for a smoother listening experience. Here's the first hour of the testimony. ---------------------------------- My name is Doctor Aseem Malhotra. I am a consultant cardiologist. I've been a qualified doctor since 2001. I have held various roles both in academic health policy. In England, in the United Kingdom, and of the various roles, I won't bore you with all the details. I think three of the most relevant and prominent are the fact that I was an ambassador for the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges for six years, which represented every doctor in the UK. I served a full term of six years as a trustee of the King's fund. I was the youngest member to be appointed to this body which advises government on health policy. I was a founding member of Action on Sugar and a first science director. And through that role I'm considered the lead campaigner on bringing about a sugary drinks tax in the UK. And also, finally I served for five years as visiting professor of evidence based medicine at the Bahiana School of Medicine in Salvador, Brazil. In early 2020, at the beginning of the pandemic I was most vocal doctor on the mainstream, making the link very early on between COVID and those who are vulnerable to suffering serious complications from COVID In fact, in March 2020, I was asked to go on Sky News to explain my initial research findings of the link between especially obesity and COVID, but also to give people an opportunity and to suggest to the government this was a great time for them to implement public health policy to help people enhance or optimise their immune system, which could happen within just a few weeks of dietary changes and optimising vitamin D. This was later also backed up by medical journal publications a few months later. And I was first to mention on the back of an article I published in the Daily Telegraph newspaper, which became a front page commentary and was picked up by BBC News and Good Morning Britain, where I had said that it's likely our prime minister, Boris Johnson, was hospitalised because of his weight. As a result of that, the then secretary for health, Matt Hancock, and this was publicised in the news, had asked me to advise him on the link between COVID and obesity. ...before I explain my journey and in many ways U-turn on my understanding in terms of the benefits and harms of the COVID vaccine, my experience in this area over the last couple of years has made me realise more than ever that even for that the greatest barrier to the truth are not factual or intellectual barriers, but psychological. I think all of us as human beings are vulnerable to these psychological barriers and we should have compassion for ourselves. And I will just very briefly summarise those three psychological barriers before I get into my detailed account of what I was involved in in regards to the COVID vaccine. The first psychological barrier is one of fear. And many of us understandably, and I still remember from early on in the pandemic, we were all scared. We did not know what we were dealing with. The issue with fear is that when people and populations are in a state of fear, we are less likely to engage in critical thinking and we are more likely to be compliant. Although COVID was particularly devastating for vulnerable groups in the elderly and I even have managed and still manage people with long COVID, the fear was grossly exaggerated. And one of the examples of that is that when we had good information on the mortality rate of COVID in the United States, one survey in 2020 revealed that 50% of Americans believed that if they caught COVID, the risk of 19 hospitalisation was 50% one and two, when the actual figure, certainly an average for people in middle age, was less than 1%. The second barrier to the truth, which I think is very relevant to the situation we find ourselves in now, is one called willful blindness. This is when human beings, all of us, are vulnerable to this, turn a blind eye to the truth in order to feel safe, avoid conflict, reduce anxiety and to protect prestige and fragile egos. Some examples of this include, on a personal level, willful blindness can occur when a spouse turns a blind eye to the affair of their partner. On an institutional level, some great examples of willful blindness include Hollywood and Harvey Weinstein, the Catholic Church and child molestation. I believe the current situation we find ourselves in, with much of the mainstream narrative and the medical establishment and policy makers not acknowledging quite horrific, serious and common harms from this vaccine, is another example of willful blindness. And I also say this with full empathy, because I was one of those people that was for a very long time, willfully blind to the harms of the COVID vaccine. In January 2021, I was one of the first people to take two doses of the COVID mRNA vaccine because I volunteered in a vaccine centre. I still believe that traditional vaccines are some of the safest amongst all pharmacological interventions in medicine and I could not conceive of any possibility whatsoever of this vaccine causing harm. As a public figure and respected doctor in the UK, I have built relationships across the board with many other public figures, including celebrities and politicians, who often come to me for medical advice. One of those people was film director Gurinder Chadha, who you may be familiar with some of her work, including the movie "Bend It like Beckham", who had asked me whether or not she should take the vaccine and had sent me blogs which I dismissed and regarded as anti vax nonsense. I was then asked to go on good morning, Britain because Gurinder Chadha, the director herself tweeted that I had convinced her to take the vaccine. The main reason for this TV appearance was to help tackle vaccine hesitancy, which was very prominent amongst people from ethnic minority groups in the UK. I made the point on that programme that I understand where vaccine hesitancy was coming from because of the history that I have been involved with over many years in highlighting the shortcomings of pharmaceutical industry influence over medicine. And I even made the point, if I remember correctly, that they have been found guilty of fraud on many occasions, that the third most common cause of death, prepandemic after heart disease and cancer, is prescribed medications. I, however, reassured the public and said that despite these figures, of everything we do in medicine, traditional vaccinations are amongst the safest. I still believe this to be the case. A few months later, in April 2021, I met with a colleague and friend of mine who I regard as one of the brightest cardiologists in the United Kingdom. I was surprised when he told me that he had not taken the COVID vaccine. He explained to me that he had concerns because he had seen in the supplementary appendix of Pfizer's original trial that there were four cardiac arrests in the vaccine group and only one in the placebo. These numbers were small and did not reach statistical significance. So this could be random chance, or his concern was it could represent a signal of problems in the future. And if this was the case, we are going to have a huge problem. He said he'd rather wait and see what happens before taking the vaccine. On July 26, 2021, my father, aged 73, who was a very prominent, well known doctor in the UK, including being the honorary vice president of the British Medical Association and had received honours from the Queen of England with an OBE, suffered an unexpected sudden cardiac arrest. I was particularly devastated by this happening and I was also I find it difficult to understand why my father, who was a fit and well man, I knew his cardiac history and his cardiac status, would suffer a cardiac arrest. But also my initial investigation was to try and understand why there had been a 30 minutes ambulance delay arriving to his apartment. Two weeks later, the deputy chief nurse of NHS England, a government health body, called me up. She was very upset, she knew my father very well and she was crying and she told me, Aseem, there's something I need to tell you. She in effect told me that throughout the country, for the last two months prior to my father's cardiac arrest in most regions of the UK, ambulances were not getting to patients in time for heart attacks and cardiac arrests. And there had been a deliberate, and I will use these words because I mentioned it, I've mentioned it before, a cover up involving the government and the Department of Health to withhold this information from doctors and the public. I worked with an investigative journalist with the I newspaper in the UK to write an article and a news story that became BBC News headlines a few months later, exposing this. Just before I exposed this, I messaged a professor of cardiology who I trust in the UK. He has a leadership role to explain to him what had happened and what I was about to do. I have text message evidence of this. He told me not to do this because it would make me enemies. I explained to him that I had a duty to patients and the public. I'm highlighting this as one example and I'll give you more examples of a cultural problem within medicine. The next part of this story is the post mortem findings of my father. They did not make any sense to me. I am considered a leading expert, maybe in the world, on the development and progression of coronary artery disease. My father had two severe blockages in his coronary arteries. There was no actual evidence of heart attack and likely there was a rhythm disturbance because of reduced blood supply that led to his cardiac arrest. Then in, within the space of a few weeks, around October and November, 3, different sources of information was brought to my attention that made me realise that there was probably a significant problem with the COVID mRNA vaccine. The first in October 2021. I remember I was giving lectures in Stockholm. I was contacted by a journalist with a Times newspaper who reported to me and said, Dr Malhotra, we have reports of an unexplained 25% increase in heart attacks in hospitals in Scotland and asked me what I thought was going on. I explained to her that at that time, with the evidence I knew in my own experience, I said that two likely contributory factors were lockdown stress. We know that when populations undergo severe stress after war, for example, there is an increase in heart attacks and strokes that can last for many years. She asked me whether I thought that there was a contribution. I was surprised when she asked me whether I thought there may be a contribution of the COVID vaccine to these heart attacks. I said to her, a good scientist should never exclude any possibility. But I felt at the time it was unlikely to be related to the COVID vaccine. But we should watch this space and keep our eyes open. A few weeks later, a publication appeared in the Journal Circulation, which is considered the highest impact cardiology journal in the United States that revealed a potentially very strong link between the COVID mRNA vaccines and acceleration in heart attack risk. Very specifically, in several hundred people of middle age, there was a plausible mechanism, by use of inflammatory markers in the blood, that increased the baseline risk of those people having a heart attack in five years, from 11% to 25%, just within two months of having the COVID mRNA vaccines. Of course, this is one bit of data, but even if partially true, that is a huge increase in risk in a very short space of time. And for me now made me think and link back to why my father may have suffered a cardiac arrest six months after having two doses of the vaccine. I remember thinking and speaking to a colleague, that if this was true, then we were going to see an increase in cardiac arrests, heart attacks and excess deaths in heavily vaccinated countries for the next few years. Then within a few weeks, I was called up by a whistleblower at a very prestigious british institution. I will name that institution, which I have not done publicly before as a University of Oxford. This cardiologist explained to me that a group of researchers in his department had accidentally found, through the use of very specialised imaging of the heart, that there was a signal of increased inflammation of the heart arteries, which was there in the vaccinated, but not there in the unvaccinated. The lead researcher of that group had sat down, the juniors, and had said that we are not going to explore these findings any further because it may affect our funding from the pharmaceutical industry. At that point, with these three bits of information, I then felt it was my ethical duty to speak out. And I went on GBNews to talk about what I'd found what I'd heard and I'd asked for the Vaccine Committee of the UK on TV to investigate this, to see whether there was a real problem with the vaccine in relation to heart issues. Around the same time which I found very strange is that the Secretary of State for Health at that stage, who was not Matt Hancock, was Sajid Javid, had announced in parliament that we are going to introduce legislation to ensure that all healthcare workers are mandated to have the COVID vaccine. For me, this, by that stage had no ethical or scientific justification, because certainly after the summer of 2021, it had become very apparent that the COVID mRNA vaccine was not stopping infection and it certainly was not stopping transmission. It was understood that approximately 80,000 NHS workers had refused at this stage to have the COVID vaccine. And now they were threatened with losing their job if by April the following year they had not been fully vaccinated. Many of these people were very concerned and contacted me around that time, I was also conducting many interviews, both through the BBC and Sky News and GBNews in regards to what happened with my father's ambulance delay. And I used it as an opportunity on the mainstream media to call for Sajid Javid, the secretary for health, to U-turn on the introduction of a mandate for healthcare workers based upon the fact that I felt it was not scientific and it was unethical. I also received my own personal backlash from these comments where I was contacted by the Royal College of Physicians who I had an affiliation with, and they asked me to respond to anonymous complaints from doctors that I was spreading, in quotes, antivax disinformation. I felt with my own knowledge and experience of the healthcare system that this was a direct response probably fueled by a combination of willful blindness and institutional corruption. To elaborate a bit further, when I say institutional corruption, I mean that my view was that the complaints were likely being fueled by academics with financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry. I felt very concerned about the potential introduction of the vaccine, well, the vaccine mandate. And therefore I decided there were two things that I decided to do. The first was I made a phone call to the chairman of the British Medical Association in December 2021. I had a good relationship with him and he respected my opinion. And I spent 2 hours on the phone explaining to him everything that I knew up to that stage about my concerns of the COVID mRNA vaccine. He said to me, "Aseem, nobody appears to critically appraise the evidence on the COVID mRNA vaccine as well as you have from our conversation, he said, most of my colleagues are getting their information on the benefits and harms of the vaccine from the BBC". This was replicated by the former chair of the CDC in the United States, Rochelle Walensky, who in an interview later on had said that her initial optimism of the vaccine benefits came from CNN News report. I say this just to emphasise that we should all accept our vulnerabilities to where we receive health information. Even doctors, policymakers, judges and lawyers are all influenced on the public massively by mainstream media. The chairman of the BMA also agreed with me. There was no ethical or scientific justification for mandating the COVID vaccine. He said the BMA also did not support it. And he said because of my conversation with him, he would speak directly to the secretary for health, Sajid Javid. One month later, at the end of January 2022, the COVID vaccine mandate for healthcare workers was overturned. I at that stage, given the fact that there was some backlash happening towards me, I realised that because this is a very big issue and area, and not my initial area of expertise, I needed to carry out my own critical analysis of the COVID mRNA vaccines. I spent six to nine months critically appraising the data, including speaking to two Pfizer whistleblowers, three investigative medical journalists and eminent scientists from the University of Oxford, Stanford and Harvard. The most critical bit, the most critical research that was published on this issue, which I think the whole court should acknowledge in August 2022, was published in the journal Vaccine. That research was conducted by some of the world's top independent of drug industry influence academics. That research, we was able to reanalyze the original randomised control trials conducted by Pfizer and Moderna. They were able to do this because new information was made available on the FDA's website and Health Canada's website. The conclusions of that paper were really very disturbing. The original trials that led to the drug regulatory approval of these vaccines revealed that you were more likely to suffer serious harm from taking the vaccine, specifically hospitalisation, life changing event or disability, than you were to be hospitalised with COVID That rate of harm at two months was very high at 1 in 800. Just to give you some perspective, historically we have suspended other vaccines for much less. In 1976, the swine flu vaccine was pulled because it was found to cause a neurological syndrome called Guillain-Barre syndrome In one in 100,000 people. In 1999, the rotavirus vaccine was suspended because it was found to cause a form of bowel obstruction in children affecting 1 in 10,000. This was 1 in 800. In my view, it was very clear that given this information, published in the highest impact Vaccine journal in the world, peer reviewed, and has not had any significant rebuttals, that this vaccine now, in my view, should never have been approved for use in a single human being in the first place. In my view, this very important court case in some ways, actually is a distraction from the much bigger issue, which is there should be court cases around the world with a full inquiry into the pharmaceutical industry and an inquiry as to how we got this so very wrong. Of course, one could argue this is just one bit of research, but actually, unfortunately, there are different, many different strands of research that are showing a signal of considerable and common serious harm from these vaccines. From pharmacovigilance data that is reporting what we call yellow card reports from the public. We have plausible biological mechanism of harm. We have other research called observational data. We have autopsy data also confirming that certainly with the majority of people who died within a short space of time of having the vaccine in relation to the heart, was definitively caused by the vaccine. This is really a very, very, very horrific situation we find ourselves in. One would hope and expect that the regulators should be independently evaluating all medications. But of course, the evidence reveals this is far from true. There was an investigation by the BMJ, also published in the summer of 2022, which revealed that most of the major regulators across the world were taking most of their money from the drug industry. For example, the MHRA in the UK receives 86% of its funding from the drug industry, and the FDA in America receives 65% of its funding from the drug industry, A fact that most doctors do not know. And therefore, I would not expect members of the court to know this either, is that very, very rarely do drug industry sponsored research get independently evaluated. Clinical trial data can often involve thousands of pages of information on individual patients. The drug companies hold onto that raw data. They then give summary results to the regulator, who are then paying, who have an incentive to approve the drugs, and the drugs are then approved. I made these points in my peer reviewed article published in the Journal of Insulin Resistance in September 2022, where I concluded that we should pause and investigate the issue around the COVID mRNA vaccines. I have since then been campaigning and advocating for a return to ethical evidence based medical practise around the world. Some of the clear solutions moving forward would be changes in the law that are required so that patients, doctors, members of the public can have greater confidence in the information they receive to make decisions about their health. Two very clear, low hanging fruit solutions, which are both ethical, scientific and democratic, would be that the drug industry should be allowed to develop drugs, but they shouldn't be allowed to test them themselves. And they certainly shouldn't be allowed to design their own research to and hold onto the raw data. Their information needs to be independently evaluated. One other clear solution would also be that the medical regulators, again, should not be taking any money from the industry, as this is a gross conflict of interest. I also want to highlight for people to understand the bigger picture. Prior to the pandemic, I had realised that there was a big problem with the reliability of clinical research, where invariably the results of clinical trials on all drugs sponsored by the drug industry, grossly exaggerate their safety and benefits. I have taken this information to the European Parliament, where I spoke in 2019, and I spoke to very senior politicians in the UK government. But although they were sympathetic, they felt that the issue was much bigger than them as individuals, and therefore it also needed media attention to get public awareness on the importance of such an inquiry. Before we continue with further questions, as I've been speaking for quite a long time now I'll just finish with two references just for the court and the judges to understand just how bad this problem is. Prepandemic the man who I call the Stephen Hawking of medicine is Professor John Ioannidis from the University of Stanford. The reason I call him the Stephen Hawking of Medicine is he's the most cited medical researcher in the world and is a mathematical genius. In 2006, he published a paper which was entitled why most published research findings are false. In that paper, he makes a point that the greater the financial interests in a given field, the less likely the research findings are to be true. I say this in context of the Pfizer mRNA vaccine which has made the company $100 billion. The other point that he makes in a further paper in 2017 is, again, the reason the system continues as it is is most doctors are unaware of the information they receive when they make clinical decisions has been corrupted by commercial influence. The other credible name I will mention is the editor of the Lancet, Richard Horton, who I personally know. In 2015, he wrote an article in the Lancet in relation to a secret meeting that had taken place with himself and some of the world's top medical academics. In that, he wrote that possibly half of the medical published literature may simply be untrue. And he said that science has taken a turn towards darkness. But who's going to take the first step to clean up the system? I believe in this case and in this court today, this is going to be a very pivotal potential moment in history for that first step. ---------------------- Dr Aseem Malhotra H/T: Tiina Keskimäki 🇫🇮
29:17

BOOM!!! 💥💥💥 Dr. Aseem Malhotra's testimony was delivered in the Helsinski District Court on April 12, 2024, with the understanding that any deviation from the truth would constitute perjury. This clip was immediately banned by YouTube so please share widely. I've trimmed the clip, removing the interpreter's segment for a smoother listening experience. Here's the first hour of the testimony. ---------------------------------- My name is Doctor Aseem Malhotra. I am a consultant cardiologist. I've been a qualified doctor since 2001. I have held various roles both in academic health policy. In England, in the United Kingdom, and of the various roles, I won't bore you with all the details. I think three of the most relevant and prominent are the fact that I was an ambassador for the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges for six years, which represented every doctor in the UK. I served a full term of six years as a trustee of the King's fund. I was the youngest member to be appointed to this body which advises government on health policy. I was a founding member of Action on Sugar and a first science director. And through that role I'm considered the lead campaigner on bringing about a sugary drinks tax in the UK. And also, finally I served for five years as visiting professor of evidence based medicine at the Bahiana School of Medicine in Salvador, Brazil. In early 2020, at the beginning of the pandemic I was most vocal doctor on the mainstream, making the link very early on between COVID and those who are vulnerable to suffering serious complications from COVID In fact, in March 2020, I was asked to go on Sky News to explain my initial research findings of the link between especially obesity and COVID, but also to give people an opportunity and to suggest to the government this was a great time for them to implement public health policy to help people enhance or optimise their immune system, which could happen within just a few weeks of dietary changes and optimising vitamin D. This was later also backed up by medical journal publications a few months later. And I was first to mention on the back of an article I published in the Daily Telegraph newspaper, which became a front page commentary and was picked up by BBC News and Good Morning Britain, where I had said that it's likely our prime minister, Boris Johnson, was hospitalised because of his weight. As a result of that, the then secretary for health, Matt Hancock, and this was publicised in the news, had asked me to advise him on the link between COVID and obesity. ...before I explain my journey and in many ways U-turn on my understanding in terms of the benefits and harms of the COVID vaccine, my experience in this area over the last couple of years has made me realise more than ever that even for that the greatest barrier to the truth are not factual or intellectual barriers, but psychological. I think all of us as human beings are vulnerable to these psychological barriers and we should have compassion for ourselves. And I will just very briefly summarise those three psychological barriers before I get into my detailed account of what I was involved in in regards to the COVID vaccine. The first psychological barrier is one of fear. And many of us understandably, and I still remember from early on in the pandemic, we were all scared. We did not know what we were dealing with. The issue with fear is that when people and populations are in a state of fear, we are less likely to engage in critical thinking and we are more likely to be compliant. Although COVID was particularly devastating for vulnerable groups in the elderly and I even have managed and still manage people with long COVID, the fear was grossly exaggerated. And one of the examples of that is that when we had good information on the mortality rate of COVID in the United States, one survey in 2020 revealed that 50% of Americans believed that if they caught COVID, the risk of 19 hospitalisation was 50% one and two, when the actual figure, certainly an average for people in middle age, was less than 1%. The second barrier to the truth, which I think is very relevant to the situation we find ourselves in now, is one called willful blindness. This is when human beings, all of us, are vulnerable to this, turn a blind eye to the truth in order to feel safe, avoid conflict, reduce anxiety and to protect prestige and fragile egos. Some examples of this include, on a personal level, willful blindness can occur when a spouse turns a blind eye to the affair of their partner. On an institutional level, some great examples of willful blindness include Hollywood and Harvey Weinstein, the Catholic Church and child molestation. I believe the current situation we find ourselves in, with much of the mainstream narrative and the medical establishment and policy makers not acknowledging quite horrific, serious and common harms from this vaccine, is another example of willful blindness. And I also say this with full empathy, because I was one of those people that was for a very long time, willfully blind to the harms of the COVID vaccine. In January 2021, I was one of the first people to take two doses of the COVID mRNA vaccine because I volunteered in a vaccine centre. I still believe that traditional vaccines are some of the safest amongst all pharmacological interventions in medicine and I could not conceive of any possibility whatsoever of this vaccine causing harm. As a public figure and respected doctor in the UK, I have built relationships across the board with many other public figures, including celebrities and politicians, who often come to me for medical advice. One of those people was film director Gurinder Chadha, who you may be familiar with some of her work, including the movie "Bend It like Beckham", who had asked me whether or not she should take the vaccine and had sent me blogs which I dismissed and regarded as anti vax nonsense. I was then asked to go on good morning, Britain because Gurinder Chadha, the director herself tweeted that I had convinced her to take the vaccine. The main reason for this TV appearance was to help tackle vaccine hesitancy, which was very prominent amongst people from ethnic minority groups in the UK. I made the point on that programme that I understand where vaccine hesitancy was coming from because of the history that I have been involved with over many years in highlighting the shortcomings of pharmaceutical industry influence over medicine. And I even made the point, if I remember correctly, that they have been found guilty of fraud on many occasions, that the third most common cause of death, prepandemic after heart disease and cancer, is prescribed medications. I, however, reassured the public and said that despite these figures, of everything we do in medicine, traditional vaccinations are amongst the safest. I still believe this to be the case. A few months later, in April 2021, I met with a colleague and friend of mine who I regard as one of the brightest cardiologists in the United Kingdom. I was surprised when he told me that he had not taken the COVID vaccine. He explained to me that he had concerns because he had seen in the supplementary appendix of Pfizer's original trial that there were four cardiac arrests in the vaccine group and only one in the placebo. These numbers were small and did not reach statistical significance. So this could be random chance, or his concern was it could represent a signal of problems in the future. And if this was the case, we are going to have a huge problem. He said he'd rather wait and see what happens before taking the vaccine. On July 26, 2021, my father, aged 73, who was a very prominent, well known doctor in the UK, including being the honorary vice president of the British Medical Association and had received honours from the Queen of England with an OBE, suffered an unexpected sudden cardiac arrest. I was particularly devastated by this happening and I was also I find it difficult to understand why my father, who was a fit and well man, I knew his cardiac history and his cardiac status, would suffer a cardiac arrest. But also my initial investigation was to try and understand why there had been a 30 minutes ambulance delay arriving to his apartment. Two weeks later, the deputy chief nurse of NHS England, a government health body, called me up. She was very upset, she knew my father very well and she was crying and she told me, Aseem, there's something I need to tell you. She in effect told me that throughout the country, for the last two months prior to my father's cardiac arrest in most regions of the UK, ambulances were not getting to patients in time for heart attacks and cardiac arrests. And there had been a deliberate, and I will use these words because I mentioned it, I've mentioned it before, a cover up involving the government and the Department of Health to withhold this information from doctors and the public. I worked with an investigative journalist with the I newspaper in the UK to write an article and a news story that became BBC News headlines a few months later, exposing this. Just before I exposed this, I messaged a professor of cardiology who I trust in the UK. He has a leadership role to explain to him what had happened and what I was about to do. I have text message evidence of this. He told me not to do this because it would make me enemies. I explained to him that I had a duty to patients and the public. I'm highlighting this as one example and I'll give you more examples of a cultural problem within medicine. The next part of this story is the post mortem findings of my father. They did not make any sense to me. I am considered a leading expert, maybe in the world, on the development and progression of coronary artery disease. My father had two severe blockages in his coronary arteries. There was no actual evidence of heart attack and likely there was a rhythm disturbance because of reduced blood supply that led to his cardiac arrest. Then in, within the space of a few weeks, around October and November, 3, different sources of information was brought to my attention that made me realise that there was probably a significant problem with the COVID mRNA vaccine. The first in October 2021. I remember I was giving lectures in Stockholm. I was contacted by a journalist with a Times newspaper who reported to me and said, Dr Malhotra, we have reports of an unexplained 25% increase in heart attacks in hospitals in Scotland and asked me what I thought was going on. I explained to her that at that time, with the evidence I knew in my own experience, I said that two likely contributory factors were lockdown stress. We know that when populations undergo severe stress after war, for example, there is an increase in heart attacks and strokes that can last for many years. She asked me whether I thought that there was a contribution. I was surprised when she asked me whether I thought there may be a contribution of the COVID vaccine to these heart attacks. I said to her, a good scientist should never exclude any possibility. But I felt at the time it was unlikely to be related to the COVID vaccine. But we should watch this space and keep our eyes open. A few weeks later, a publication appeared in the Journal Circulation, which is considered the highest impact cardiology journal in the United States that revealed a potentially very strong link between the COVID mRNA vaccines and acceleration in heart attack risk. Very specifically, in several hundred people of middle age, there was a plausible mechanism, by use of inflammatory markers in the blood, that increased the baseline risk of those people having a heart attack in five years, from 11% to 25%, just within two months of having the COVID mRNA vaccines. Of course, this is one bit of data, but even if partially true, that is a huge increase in risk in a very short space of time. And for me now made me think and link back to why my father may have suffered a cardiac arrest six months after having two doses of the vaccine. I remember thinking and speaking to a colleague, that if this was true, then we were going to see an increase in cardiac arrests, heart attacks and excess deaths in heavily vaccinated countries for the next few years. Then within a few weeks, I was called up by a whistleblower at a very prestigious british institution. I will name that institution, which I have not done publicly before as a University of Oxford. This cardiologist explained to me that a group of researchers in his department had accidentally found, through the use of very specialised imaging of the heart, that there was a signal of increased inflammation of the heart arteries, which was there in the vaccinated, but not there in the unvaccinated. The lead researcher of that group had sat down, the juniors, and had said that we are not going to explore these findings any further because it may affect our funding from the pharmaceutical industry. At that point, with these three bits of information, I then felt it was my ethical duty to speak out. And I went on GBNews to talk about what I'd found what I'd heard and I'd asked for the Vaccine Committee of the UK on TV to investigate this, to see whether there was a real problem with the vaccine in relation to heart issues. Around the same time which I found very strange is that the Secretary of State for Health at that stage, who was not Matt Hancock, was Sajid Javid, had announced in parliament that we are going to introduce legislation to ensure that all healthcare workers are mandated to have the COVID vaccine. For me, this, by that stage had no ethical or scientific justification, because certainly after the summer of 2021, it had become very apparent that the COVID mRNA vaccine was not stopping infection and it certainly was not stopping transmission. It was understood that approximately 80,000 NHS workers had refused at this stage to have the COVID vaccine. And now they were threatened with losing their job if by April the following year they had not been fully vaccinated. Many of these people were very concerned and contacted me around that time, I was also conducting many interviews, both through the BBC and Sky News and GBNews in regards to what happened with my father's ambulance delay. And I used it as an opportunity on the mainstream media to call for Sajid Javid, the secretary for health, to U-turn on the introduction of a mandate for healthcare workers based upon the fact that I felt it was not scientific and it was unethical. I also received my own personal backlash from these comments where I was contacted by the Royal College of Physicians who I had an affiliation with, and they asked me to respond to anonymous complaints from doctors that I was spreading, in quotes, antivax disinformation. I felt with my own knowledge and experience of the healthcare system that this was a direct response probably fueled by a combination of willful blindness and institutional corruption. To elaborate a bit further, when I say institutional corruption, I mean that my view was that the complaints were likely being fueled by academics with financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry. I felt very concerned about the potential introduction of the vaccine, well, the vaccine mandate. And therefore I decided there were two things that I decided to do. The first was I made a phone call to the chairman of the British Medical Association in December 2021. I had a good relationship with him and he respected my opinion. And I spent 2 hours on the phone explaining to him everything that I knew up to that stage about my concerns of the COVID mRNA vaccine. He said to me, "Aseem, nobody appears to critically appraise the evidence on the COVID mRNA vaccine as well as you have from our conversation, he said, most of my colleagues are getting their information on the benefits and harms of the vaccine from the BBC". This was replicated by the former chair of the CDC in the United States, Rochelle Walensky, who in an interview later on had said that her initial optimism of the vaccine benefits came from CNN News report. I say this just to emphasise that we should all accept our vulnerabilities to where we receive health information. Even doctors, policymakers, judges and lawyers are all influenced on the public massively by mainstream media. The chairman of the BMA also agreed with me. There was no ethical or scientific justification for mandating the COVID vaccine. He said the BMA also did not support it. And he said because of my conversation with him, he would speak directly to the secretary for health, Sajid Javid. One month later, at the end of January 2022, the COVID vaccine mandate for healthcare workers was overturned. I at that stage, given the fact that there was some backlash happening towards me, I realised that because this is a very big issue and area, and not my initial area of expertise, I needed to carry out my own critical analysis of the COVID mRNA vaccines. I spent six to nine months critically appraising the data, including speaking to two Pfizer whistleblowers, three investigative medical journalists and eminent scientists from the University of Oxford, Stanford and Harvard. The most critical bit, the most critical research that was published on this issue, which I think the whole court should acknowledge in August 2022, was published in the journal Vaccine. That research was conducted by some of the world's top independent of drug industry influence academics. That research, we was able to reanalyze the original randomised control trials conducted by Pfizer and Moderna. They were able to do this because new information was made available on the FDA's website and Health Canada's website. The conclusions of that paper were really very disturbing. The original trials that led to the drug regulatory approval of these vaccines revealed that you were more likely to suffer serious harm from taking the vaccine, specifically hospitalisation, life changing event or disability, than you were to be hospitalised with COVID That rate of harm at two months was very high at 1 in 800. Just to give you some perspective, historically we have suspended other vaccines for much less. In 1976, the swine flu vaccine was pulled because it was found to cause a neurological syndrome called Guillain-Barre syndrome In one in 100,000 people. In 1999, the rotavirus vaccine was suspended because it was found to cause a form of bowel obstruction in children affecting 1 in 10,000. This was 1 in 800. In my view, it was very clear that given this information, published in the highest impact Vaccine journal in the world, peer reviewed, and has not had any significant rebuttals, that this vaccine now, in my view, should never have been approved for use in a single human being in the first place. In my view, this very important court case in some ways, actually is a distraction from the much bigger issue, which is there should be court cases around the world with a full inquiry into the pharmaceutical industry and an inquiry as to how we got this so very wrong. Of course, one could argue this is just one bit of research, but actually, unfortunately, there are different, many different strands of research that are showing a signal of considerable and common serious harm from these vaccines. From pharmacovigilance data that is reporting what we call yellow card reports from the public. We have plausible biological mechanism of harm. We have other research called observational data. We have autopsy data also confirming that certainly with the majority of people who died within a short space of time of having the vaccine in relation to the heart, was definitively caused by the vaccine. This is really a very, very, very horrific situation we find ourselves in. One would hope and expect that the regulators should be independently evaluating all medications. But of course, the evidence reveals this is far from true. There was an investigation by the BMJ, also published in the summer of 2022, which revealed that most of the major regulators across the world were taking most of their money from the drug industry. For example, the MHRA in the UK receives 86% of its funding from the drug industry, and the FDA in America receives 65% of its funding from the drug industry, A fact that most doctors do not know. And therefore, I would not expect members of the court to know this either, is that very, very rarely do drug industry sponsored research get independently evaluated. Clinical trial data can often involve thousands of pages of information on individual patients. The drug companies hold onto that raw data. They then give summary results to the regulator, who are then paying, who have an incentive to approve the drugs, and the drugs are then approved. I made these points in my peer reviewed article published in the Journal of Insulin Resistance in September 2022, where I concluded that we should pause and investigate the issue around the COVID mRNA vaccines. I have since then been campaigning and advocating for a return to ethical evidence based medical practise around the world. Some of the clear solutions moving forward would be changes in the law that are required so that patients, doctors, members of the public can have greater confidence in the information they receive to make decisions about their health. Two very clear, low hanging fruit solutions, which are both ethical, scientific and democratic, would be that the drug industry should be allowed to develop drugs, but they shouldn't be allowed to test them themselves. And they certainly shouldn't be allowed to design their own research to and hold onto the raw data. Their information needs to be independently evaluated. One other clear solution would also be that the medical regulators, again, should not be taking any money from the industry, as this is a gross conflict of interest. I also want to highlight for people to understand the bigger picture. Prior to the pandemic, I had realised that there was a big problem with the reliability of clinical research, where invariably the results of clinical trials on all drugs sponsored by the drug industry, grossly exaggerate their safety and benefits. I have taken this information to the European Parliament, where I spoke in 2019, and I spoke to very senior politicians in the UK government. But although they were sympathetic, they felt that the issue was much bigger than them as individuals, and therefore it also needed media attention to get public awareness on the importance of such an inquiry. Before we continue with further questions, as I've been speaking for quite a long time now I'll just finish with two references just for the court and the judges to understand just how bad this problem is. Prepandemic the man who I call the Stephen Hawking of medicine is Professor John Ioannidis from the University of Stanford. The reason I call him the Stephen Hawking of Medicine is he's the most cited medical researcher in the world and is a mathematical genius. In 2006, he published a paper which was entitled why most published research findings are false. In that paper, he makes a point that the greater the financial interests in a given field, the less likely the research findings are to be true. I say this in context of the Pfizer mRNA vaccine which has made the company $100 billion. The other point that he makes in a further paper in 2017 is, again, the reason the system continues as it is is most doctors are unaware of the information they receive when they make clinical decisions has been corrupted by commercial influence. The other credible name I will mention is the editor of the Lancet, Richard Horton, who I personally know. In 2015, he wrote an article in the Lancet in relation to a secret meeting that had taken place with himself and some of the world's top medical academics. In that, he wrote that possibly half of the medical published literature may simply be untrue. And he said that science has taken a turn towards darkness. But who's going to take the first step to clean up the system? I believe in this case and in this court today, this is going to be a very pivotal potential moment in history for that first step. ---------------------- Dr Aseem Malhotra H/T: Tiina Keskimäki 🇫🇮

aussie17

797,301 次观看 • 2 年前

Zack Polanski on BBC Radio 4's Today prog calmly knocking back everything Nick Robinson throws at him across 17 minutes NR (00:00.2), "Delighted to say that Zach Polanski is here in the Today programme studio, for the latest, indeed, for the last of our party leader interviews. Morning to you and thanks for coming in." ZP (00:09.2), "Thanks for having me." NR (00:09.8), "Nick, I want to talk to you about what your party would do if it does indeed gain some power after the votes on Thursday. But I want to begin by putting to you one of the latest storeys about you. A Times investigation says that you've made a series of false or disputed claims about jobs you've had in the past with." NR (00:31.8), "Why, for example, did you say you were a spokesperson for the British Red Cross when they are absolutely clear that, though a supporter of theirs, you were never a spokesperson for them?" ZP (00:42.3), "So I hosted, various fundraisers for the British Red Cross and indeed I would go on stage and speak for them about the amazing work they do tackling humanitarian crises, on the climate crisis and indeed for refugees all around the world. I use the wrong word and I accept that." ZP (00:57.5), "But I would essentially take words on stage with me and speak. It's important, though, and I accept this, that, you know, I don't support any political party and I've made sure that's been taken down." NR (01:06.5), "You say this sort of storey is a fuss about nothing, that you get your facts wrong because it comes up with other examples." ZP (01:11.7), "Well, I think it's totally fine to ask me questions about my past. I would also say in the same breath, though the Times published a pretty anti Semitic cartoon of me last week. I asked them to apologise. And it feels some of these storeys feel like scraping the barrel to kind of go back 10, 15 years. I've had so many friends, I'm literally talking maybe 20 or 30 in the last few weeks who have phoned me and said, a Times journalist has been phoning and they've been desperately trying, trying to find things about your past." ZP (01:36.5), "They asked me lots of questions and seemed disappointed that I didn't have some juicy, dirty gossip." NR (01:41.6), "Yeah, well, there was. Whether you call it juicy or dirty, and it wasn't gossip, it was a fact. The fact that you claimed that as a hypnotherapist, you could enlarge women's breasts using the power of thought. People are entitled to say, what's this guy really about?" ZP (01:57.2), "People are totally entitled to say that. And that's an important part of politics, that people ask you questions. What I would say is that, you know, this was 13 years ago. It was a Sun journalist's idea. I've apologised for that. Because even though it was a son journalist idea, I was an adult and I should have said no, you went along with it." NR (02:12.6), "Yeah." ZP (02:12.9), "It's important to say I wasn't a politician. And I've apologised for it repeatedly." NR (02:16.7), "And the BBC showed that some days later, in fact, you repeated the claim that you could do it. But let us not get bogged down in the past. It is striking, though, that on X last night, when, let's be honest, people who are critics of you are having a go. The Daily Mail calls it the Green Menace on its front page." NR (02:34.1), "How did you react? You said you were under relentless attacks because they, your critics don't want a wealth tax, don't want public ownership. They're trying everything in their power to stop us, you said. It's a curious thing to say, isn't it? Ahead of local elections, Green councillors will not have the power to implement any of those policies, will they?" ZP (02:54.8), "Well, I think the relentless attacks on the Green Party in this election, for a local election have partly been about the local election, but really they're about the bigger picture right now. The bigger picture is when I ran to be leader of the Green party, we had 50,000 members, we've now got 225,000 members. So we are rising." ZP (03:11.1), "And I think lots of people are worried about the prospect. And when I say people, people who own, right wing media, multimillionaires and billionaires who are worried about the prospect that they might have to pay a little bit more tax. And so I think it's important that I focus on the vision and the hope and our actual plan." ZP (03:27.4), "I also think it's a complete reality, though we've seen it in the past before with left wing leaders, that there's no secret, there's no love lost between me and the right wing media. And almost every single day they print things that just aren't true." NR (03:38.8), "But just address the point I raised. Wealth tax councils won't get to do that. Public ownership councils don't get to do that. Well, not entirely. We'll come to that in a second. You are running on a national platform of change that the people who are elected on Thursday, whether in the Welsh Parliament, you don't run candidates in the Scottish one, or in English, local councils simply cannot do." ZP (04:03.2), "Well, I think it's about what are your values as a party? And whilst other party leaders and other parties take donations from oil and gas companies or arms trade companies, private healthcare or gambling, Green Party councillors only have two vested interests and Those vested interests. We want to protect the communities we seek to serve and we want to protect the environment." NR (04:21.6), "Well, let's come to that, then, because most interesting, perhaps, is to look at what Greens say who are running for office. You are not. You are a member of the London assembly, you're not a Member of Parliament, you're not running in these elections. Now, you live in Hackney. Hackney happens in northeast London to be a top Green target for taking control from the Labour Party." NR (04:41.9), "So let's look at protecting communities. For example, on crime, the manifesto calls the Metropolitan Police institutionally racist, homophobic, sexist and misogynists. It goes on to say, greens cannot accept this system. It calls for safe spaces for, heroin users to shoot up, to end cautions for street prostitution and to end what the manifesto calls discriminatory policing of delivery riders." NR (05:08.8), "This is an agenda for an endless fight with the police, isn't it?" ZP (05:12.0), "I don't think so. Baroness Casey, in the last couple of years, did a review into Metropolitan Police and it was actually the findings that found it institutionally racist and misogynistic. Something that Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London, to his credit, accepts. It is noticeable that Mark Rowley, the Commissioner of the Police, doesn't accept that, yet they continue, to work together in that way." ZP (05:31.1), "On the issue of drug harm, we have the highest drug deaths, of any country in Europe. And every single year for the past 13 years, drug deaths have increased. So I think the question anyone has, and we have in Hackney, is that the war on drugs has clearly failed. It's failed in cities right across this country, and more and more people are, often taking dangerous drugs." ZP (05:50.3), "So do we want people to buy them on the black market or on street corners? Or do we want people to go to a pharmacy or a medical health professional where, if they have an addiction to dangerous drugs, we can work with them to take a public health approach based in harm reduction." NR (06:02.7), "Public health approaches to. Is to legalise hard drugs and to legalise prostitution, you say to legalise and regulate and the regulators. It's still legalised, isn't it?" ZP (06:11.5), "No, the point is you can't just go into a shop and buy drugs, which is how it's presented in the press. Again, because I can keep talking about what councillors can do, rather than what" NR (06:18.3), "you would do if you were Prime Minister, because that's for another interview. Are you saying councillors should cut the police budget? Because that's what it seems to imply when you say, we cannot accept this system, let the council spend Money on crime reduction. Don't give that money to the police." ZP (06:33.7), "It's about reprioritizing. So it's." NR (06:35.5), "Does that mean cut in English?" ZP (06:36.7), "No. So let's look at example. We're straight back onto drugs. A lot of police time is spent on stop and search for cannabis use, for instance. It doesn't escape people's notice that that is often, in the politics of racism, if you're a young black person, I think it's something like you're 18 times more likely to be stopped and searched than your white peer, despite the fact there's no evidence that they're more likely to be dealing or using drugs." ZP (07:00.8), "And so I think it's important that we make sure the police time is spent properly, which I think is about community prevention, about cohesiveness and bringing communities together, particularly in, like, whether it means redirecting the budget." NR (07:11.4), "Does it mean the police budget?" ZP (07:12.9), "Well, it means redirecting within the police budget, so making sure that the time police are spent is spent on community safety." NR (07:18.2), "Well, it's interesting that we talked about police because, as you know, you've come under serious criticism for retweeting criticism of the action of the police officers who stopped the alleged attacker of Jews in Golda's Green. Now, you apologised for retweeting that." NR (07:34.1), "You said you should have a meeting with the head of the Met. You sent him a letter. I want to ask you a different question. You've not apologised for the content of that. Why did you empathise with the attacker, and not with police officers who feared for their own lives and were trying to protect other people's lives?" ZP (07:53.3), "I think there's two things in that that I, really clearly want to say. The first is my very first response to the attack was to be horrif, as everyone was, I'm sure. And the first thing I posted was solidarity to the victim, to the family and indeed, to people who are suffering right now, including as a Jewish man, where Jewish safety is not abstract." NR (08:12.0), "But then you posted that officers were repeatedly and violently kicking a mentally ill man in the head when he was incapacitated by a Taser, caused extreme offence to those officers, to the head of the Met and to many people. I ask you again, why did you empathise, Empathise with the attacker, not with the police officer." ZP (08:28.9), "As I said, there's two things I wanted to say, so that was the first. The second, what I want to say is two things can be true at the same Time officers are incredibly brave when they run towards scenes of crimes that most people, including myself, would want to run away from. At the same time, I think it is accurate, and that I was also traumatised, by seeing, someone handcuffed and completely, repeatedly kicked in the head." ZP (08:51.7), "Now, sure, if you'll forgive me, it is an answer," NR (08:54.4), "but it's not an answer to the question. You posted something with the power that you have, with the number of people who follows us, and not empathising in that post with the Jewish community or critically with the police officers, you empathise with the attacker. Look what they're doing to the alleged attacker." ZP (09:11.1), "I don't think it was your choice. As I say, the first thing I did was show solidarity to the victims and I thank the officers. Second, though, I think the sign of a compassionate society is how we treat people, even people who have done horrific things, because actually, the way we do justice in this country is in court." NR (09:26.0), "You said a key value of the Greens was protecting communities. What are your proposals for protecting the Jewish community?" ZP (09:33.5), "The Jewish community is not safe right now. And as I said, as a Jewish man, this isn't abstract for me. In fact, in the last six weeks alone, two people have been arrested. So how would you protect anti Semitic attacks towards me? I think there's lots that needs to happen in this country. The first is community cohesion and community building. Some of the work that I'm proudest of in London, that I see Londoners do, is where I see the Jewish community working alongside the Muslim community." NR (09:55.1), "What would you do? What would Zach Polanski do in order to reduce attacks on the Jewish community?" ZP (09:59.9), "So, first of all, to invest in that work, that community, faith work, to make sure communities stand together. Second, to make sure that the Jewish community, give them the investment that they need. In fact, what the Prime Minister has been doing to make sure that happens. I do think a police response is the last response when everything before it has failed." NR (10:17.6), "I still think you're not really answering the question about what you would do. Let me ask you this." ZP (10:21.0), "I think I do." NR (10:21.6), "Would you deal with, for example, a candidate who says Jewish people fear hate because they know they should be hated. Another one who suggested that the attacks on the ambulances was a false flag and carried out, presumably by Israel. Another of your candidates who blamed Israel for the Bondi beach terrorist attack." NR (10:41.0), "A fourth candidate who said Donald Trump was, quote, owned by Jews. And most horrifying of all, although this individual has now been arrested, one of your candidates who Reposted something saying ramming a synagogue isn't anti Semitism, it's revenge." NR (10:56.8), "What are you, Zach Polanski doing to end these disgusting messages?" ZP (11:03.5), "Those messages are all unacceptable and it's important to condemn that. The Green Party are an anti racist party and it's important that we stick to our values." NR (11:11.0), "We can't just say the words were an anti racist bar to. And I've just read you out five of the most revolting comments at a time when, according to an independent advisor, we face a national emergency of anti Semitism. I'm asking you, you're not responsible for everything they say. Of course you're not." NR (11:26.3), "You can't be." ZP (11:27.3), "I am responsible, actually." NR (11:28.2), "What are you going to do about it?" ZP (11:29.0), "I am the leader of a party. I was about to finish my sentence." NR (11:31.5), "Forgive me. Go on." ZP (11:32.4), "We're an anti racist party. And so what I've already committed to doing is making sure that we have a standardised vetting process in future. And also make sure that we have compulsory training of all our candidates to make it clear that anti Semitism is completely unwelcome in the Green Party as it is in society. It is also important to say one case of anti Semitism is one too many." ZP (11:50.5), "This is a handful of cases and actually we have over 4,500 candidates, the vast, vast majority of which are doing amazing work in their communities right now, going out there to tackle the cost of living crisis, to make sure that we're funding public services and making sure that it's about people power and community, grassroots power." NR (12:05.1), "You can dismiss one or two as, just, unrepresentative. I've just read five. I could have read 20 cases of revolting anti Semitism posted by your candidates. Now you're a new leader, how are you going to avoid becoming the new Jeremy Corbyn of British politics?" ZP (12:21.5), "Well, I think me and Jeremy are very different people and there's much, you know, the question was almost inviting me to condemn Jeremy Corbyn. I think there was lots that Jeremy Corbyn was putting forward to this country that I think was really positive. We've talked about wealth taxes, about public ownership. I also think it's important, speaking, for myself right now, that we make sure that we have this vetting process, that it's really clear that anti Semitism, Islamophobia, any form of hatred or hate, crime is not welcome." NR (12:47.3), "Do you believe that Palestine is, to coin a phrase, on the ballot this Thursday?" ZP (12:52.3), "I think lots of things are on the ballot this Thursday." NR (12:54.6), "But is Palestine on the ballot? This." ZP (12:56.2), "I think it's one of the elements, as is the climate crisis. As is." NR (12:58.7), "What does it mean Palestine is on the ballot? Because. The reason I ask you is because your candidate for mayor of Lewisham says Palestine is on the ballot this Thursday. Haringey Green Party campaign launch video. You might think it'd be about bins, you might think it'd be about schools, hospitals, it might be about cleaning up the roads." NR (13:17.2), "It is a series of councillors saying, as a council, I will take all appropriate steps to, uphold the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people. Do you think council elections really should be about Palestine?" ZP (13:29.8), "I think they can be about all of those things. And I think what people have seen in this country is a genocide for two and a half years that our government is still arming, are still sharing intelligence with. And I think lots of people feel very strongly both about their local services, as they should do, and feel equally strongly about the fact that there's a reprehensible genocide happening." ZP (13:48.5), "And they vote, but the way they vote in local elections" NR (13:52.6), "should be determined by their views of Israel and Palestine." ZP (13:56.0), "I wouldn't tell anyone how their vote should be determined, but I think it's an element for lots of people in how they vote." NR (14:00.1), "And do you think that will contribute to community cohesion? Do you?" ZP (14:02.7), "I think yes, because I think, we shouldn't pit Jewish safety against a genocide in Gaza. That's conflating anti Semitism and criticism of the Israeli government. That's something Benjamin Netanyahu does regularly. And as a Jewish person, that makes me feel less safe." NR (14:16.4), "Sure. But there are lots of Jewish people who would say to you they feel unsafe if they feel that their counsellors are motivated first and foremost by Palestine. And if somebody gives that speech, for example, about Palestine being on the ballot, they are likely to think that." NR (14:34.6), "We looked for, example at Barnett Greens, where one in seven residents identify as Jewish. And it includes in its manifesto the fact that, you're standing up for Palestine. Do you think that's going to help?" ZP (14:49.0), "Well, I walk regularly on Palestinian marches with hundreds and hundreds, in fact, thousands of people, many of whom are Jewish. And there have been rabbis who have spoken out on this too. I accept, though, there are Jewish people whose views are equally as valid who, don't agree with those views." ZP (15:04.0), "And I think the job of all of us who are in public life right now is to de. Escalate tensions. And look, how do we bring people together? And I accept that's a huge challenge. And I think one of the ways we could do that is by ending our complicity in the genocide." NR (15:15.4), "Let's turn finally to another issue. We'll talk at greater length when, we're talking about the possibility of you being Prime Minister, which you have said that you would like to do. One thing that is very high on the agenda now is the soaring cost of government borrowing. What would the Greens do to cut it?" ZP (15:30.6), "Well, I think we need to make sure that we're investing. So I think there's two ways of doing that. The first is, wealth taxes, which I know we've rehearsed before, but I'll just say that's for first place." NR (15:38.4), "How does that cut government borrowing?" ZP (15:40.2), "Because ultimately it means you need to borrow less if you're." NR (15:43.0), "If you're ultimately about cutting the cost of government borrowing." ZP (15:45.5), "Yes." NR (15:45.8), "Which is soaring. It's higher than it's been any time this century because people are nervous about high spending, high taxing governments that are politically unstable." ZP (15:54.7), "I think someone who speaks brilliantly on this, who I've spoken to, is the economist Mariana Matsicatu, and she talks about the fact that a government should have a mission that should be a very clear plan of how you tackle the climate crisis, how you reduce inequality. Now, if you have a clear plan and you're borrowing for that, you're taking the market with you because they can clearly see what the return on investment is and how you're bringing money back into the." ZP (16:15.2), "That's how you reduce borrowing levels. If we don't have a plan and continue to borrow, then it feels very, very scattered, and that's why things are getting worse. We need to make sure that there's a consistent plan in place that's set out carefully that can make sure we're putting money back into our communities and investing in those communities." NR (16:29.3), "Do you think you're ready to be Prime Minister?" ZP (16:31.1), "I'm not ready right now, no. I've been leader for eight months, and there's lots of skills and lots of knowledge to get, and I think that's fine. I think I'm a human being. I'm not perfect." NR (16:38.5), "But give it two years, you will be." ZP (16:40.0), "Well, we'll see in two years time, won't we? But I'll certainly be putting in the work." NR (16:43.2), "Zach Polanski, leader of the Green Party in England and Wales, thanks very much for coming into the." ZP (16:46.3), "Thank you, Nick."
16:47

Zack Polanski on BBC Radio 4's Today prog calmly knocking back everything Nick Robinson throws at him across 17 minutes NR (00:00.2), "Delighted to say that Zach Polanski is here in the Today programme studio, for the latest, indeed, for the last of our party leader interviews. Morning to you and thanks for coming in." ZP (00:09.2), "Thanks for having me." NR (00:09.8), "Nick, I want to talk to you about what your party would do if it does indeed gain some power after the votes on Thursday. But I want to begin by putting to you one of the latest storeys about you. A Times investigation says that you've made a series of false or disputed claims about jobs you've had in the past with." NR (00:31.8), "Why, for example, did you say you were a spokesperson for the British Red Cross when they are absolutely clear that, though a supporter of theirs, you were never a spokesperson for them?" ZP (00:42.3), "So I hosted, various fundraisers for the British Red Cross and indeed I would go on stage and speak for them about the amazing work they do tackling humanitarian crises, on the climate crisis and indeed for refugees all around the world. I use the wrong word and I accept that." ZP (00:57.5), "But I would essentially take words on stage with me and speak. It's important, though, and I accept this, that, you know, I don't support any political party and I've made sure that's been taken down." NR (01:06.5), "You say this sort of storey is a fuss about nothing, that you get your facts wrong because it comes up with other examples." ZP (01:11.7), "Well, I think it's totally fine to ask me questions about my past. I would also say in the same breath, though the Times published a pretty anti Semitic cartoon of me last week. I asked them to apologise. And it feels some of these storeys feel like scraping the barrel to kind of go back 10, 15 years. I've had so many friends, I'm literally talking maybe 20 or 30 in the last few weeks who have phoned me and said, a Times journalist has been phoning and they've been desperately trying, trying to find things about your past." ZP (01:36.5), "They asked me lots of questions and seemed disappointed that I didn't have some juicy, dirty gossip." NR (01:41.6), "Yeah, well, there was. Whether you call it juicy or dirty, and it wasn't gossip, it was a fact. The fact that you claimed that as a hypnotherapist, you could enlarge women's breasts using the power of thought. People are entitled to say, what's this guy really about?" ZP (01:57.2), "People are totally entitled to say that. And that's an important part of politics, that people ask you questions. What I would say is that, you know, this was 13 years ago. It was a Sun journalist's idea. I've apologised for that. Because even though it was a son journalist idea, I was an adult and I should have said no, you went along with it." NR (02:12.6), "Yeah." ZP (02:12.9), "It's important to say I wasn't a politician. And I've apologised for it repeatedly." NR (02:16.7), "And the BBC showed that some days later, in fact, you repeated the claim that you could do it. But let us not get bogged down in the past. It is striking, though, that on X last night, when, let's be honest, people who are critics of you are having a go. The Daily Mail calls it the Green Menace on its front page." NR (02:34.1), "How did you react? You said you were under relentless attacks because they, your critics don't want a wealth tax, don't want public ownership. They're trying everything in their power to stop us, you said. It's a curious thing to say, isn't it? Ahead of local elections, Green councillors will not have the power to implement any of those policies, will they?" ZP (02:54.8), "Well, I think the relentless attacks on the Green Party in this election, for a local election have partly been about the local election, but really they're about the bigger picture right now. The bigger picture is when I ran to be leader of the Green party, we had 50,000 members, we've now got 225,000 members. So we are rising." ZP (03:11.1), "And I think lots of people are worried about the prospect. And when I say people, people who own, right wing media, multimillionaires and billionaires who are worried about the prospect that they might have to pay a little bit more tax. And so I think it's important that I focus on the vision and the hope and our actual plan." ZP (03:27.4), "I also think it's a complete reality, though we've seen it in the past before with left wing leaders, that there's no secret, there's no love lost between me and the right wing media. And almost every single day they print things that just aren't true." NR (03:38.8), "But just address the point I raised. Wealth tax councils won't get to do that. Public ownership councils don't get to do that. Well, not entirely. We'll come to that in a second. You are running on a national platform of change that the people who are elected on Thursday, whether in the Welsh Parliament, you don't run candidates in the Scottish one, or in English, local councils simply cannot do." ZP (04:03.2), "Well, I think it's about what are your values as a party? And whilst other party leaders and other parties take donations from oil and gas companies or arms trade companies, private healthcare or gambling, Green Party councillors only have two vested interests and Those vested interests. We want to protect the communities we seek to serve and we want to protect the environment." NR (04:21.6), "Well, let's come to that, then, because most interesting, perhaps, is to look at what Greens say who are running for office. You are not. You are a member of the London assembly, you're not a Member of Parliament, you're not running in these elections. Now, you live in Hackney. Hackney happens in northeast London to be a top Green target for taking control from the Labour Party." NR (04:41.9), "So let's look at protecting communities. For example, on crime, the manifesto calls the Metropolitan Police institutionally racist, homophobic, sexist and misogynists. It goes on to say, greens cannot accept this system. It calls for safe spaces for, heroin users to shoot up, to end cautions for street prostitution and to end what the manifesto calls discriminatory policing of delivery riders." NR (05:08.8), "This is an agenda for an endless fight with the police, isn't it?" ZP (05:12.0), "I don't think so. Baroness Casey, in the last couple of years, did a review into Metropolitan Police and it was actually the findings that found it institutionally racist and misogynistic. Something that Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London, to his credit, accepts. It is noticeable that Mark Rowley, the Commissioner of the Police, doesn't accept that, yet they continue, to work together in that way." ZP (05:31.1), "On the issue of drug harm, we have the highest drug deaths, of any country in Europe. And every single year for the past 13 years, drug deaths have increased. So I think the question anyone has, and we have in Hackney, is that the war on drugs has clearly failed. It's failed in cities right across this country, and more and more people are, often taking dangerous drugs." ZP (05:50.3), "So do we want people to buy them on the black market or on street corners? Or do we want people to go to a pharmacy or a medical health professional where, if they have an addiction to dangerous drugs, we can work with them to take a public health approach based in harm reduction." NR (06:02.7), "Public health approaches to. Is to legalise hard drugs and to legalise prostitution, you say to legalise and regulate and the regulators. It's still legalised, isn't it?" ZP (06:11.5), "No, the point is you can't just go into a shop and buy drugs, which is how it's presented in the press. Again, because I can keep talking about what councillors can do, rather than what" NR (06:18.3), "you would do if you were Prime Minister, because that's for another interview. Are you saying councillors should cut the police budget? Because that's what it seems to imply when you say, we cannot accept this system, let the council spend Money on crime reduction. Don't give that money to the police." ZP (06:33.7), "It's about reprioritizing. So it's." NR (06:35.5), "Does that mean cut in English?" ZP (06:36.7), "No. So let's look at example. We're straight back onto drugs. A lot of police time is spent on stop and search for cannabis use, for instance. It doesn't escape people's notice that that is often, in the politics of racism, if you're a young black person, I think it's something like you're 18 times more likely to be stopped and searched than your white peer, despite the fact there's no evidence that they're more likely to be dealing or using drugs." ZP (07:00.8), "And so I think it's important that we make sure the police time is spent properly, which I think is about community prevention, about cohesiveness and bringing communities together, particularly in, like, whether it means redirecting the budget." NR (07:11.4), "Does it mean the police budget?" ZP (07:12.9), "Well, it means redirecting within the police budget, so making sure that the time police are spent is spent on community safety." NR (07:18.2), "Well, it's interesting that we talked about police because, as you know, you've come under serious criticism for retweeting criticism of the action of the police officers who stopped the alleged attacker of Jews in Golda's Green. Now, you apologised for retweeting that." NR (07:34.1), "You said you should have a meeting with the head of the Met. You sent him a letter. I want to ask you a different question. You've not apologised for the content of that. Why did you empathise with the attacker, and not with police officers who feared for their own lives and were trying to protect other people's lives?" ZP (07:53.3), "I think there's two things in that that I, really clearly want to say. The first is my very first response to the attack was to be horrif, as everyone was, I'm sure. And the first thing I posted was solidarity to the victim, to the family and indeed, to people who are suffering right now, including as a Jewish man, where Jewish safety is not abstract." NR (08:12.0), "But then you posted that officers were repeatedly and violently kicking a mentally ill man in the head when he was incapacitated by a Taser, caused extreme offence to those officers, to the head of the Met and to many people. I ask you again, why did you empathise, Empathise with the attacker, not with the police officer." ZP (08:28.9), "As I said, there's two things I wanted to say, so that was the first. The second, what I want to say is two things can be true at the same Time officers are incredibly brave when they run towards scenes of crimes that most people, including myself, would want to run away from. At the same time, I think it is accurate, and that I was also traumatised, by seeing, someone handcuffed and completely, repeatedly kicked in the head." ZP (08:51.7), "Now, sure, if you'll forgive me, it is an answer," NR (08:54.4), "but it's not an answer to the question. You posted something with the power that you have, with the number of people who follows us, and not empathising in that post with the Jewish community or critically with the police officers, you empathise with the attacker. Look what they're doing to the alleged attacker." ZP (09:11.1), "I don't think it was your choice. As I say, the first thing I did was show solidarity to the victims and I thank the officers. Second, though, I think the sign of a compassionate society is how we treat people, even people who have done horrific things, because actually, the way we do justice in this country is in court." NR (09:26.0), "You said a key value of the Greens was protecting communities. What are your proposals for protecting the Jewish community?" ZP (09:33.5), "The Jewish community is not safe right now. And as I said, as a Jewish man, this isn't abstract for me. In fact, in the last six weeks alone, two people have been arrested. So how would you protect anti Semitic attacks towards me? I think there's lots that needs to happen in this country. The first is community cohesion and community building. Some of the work that I'm proudest of in London, that I see Londoners do, is where I see the Jewish community working alongside the Muslim community." NR (09:55.1), "What would you do? What would Zach Polanski do in order to reduce attacks on the Jewish community?" ZP (09:59.9), "So, first of all, to invest in that work, that community, faith work, to make sure communities stand together. Second, to make sure that the Jewish community, give them the investment that they need. In fact, what the Prime Minister has been doing to make sure that happens. I do think a police response is the last response when everything before it has failed." NR (10:17.6), "I still think you're not really answering the question about what you would do. Let me ask you this." ZP (10:21.0), "I think I do." NR (10:21.6), "Would you deal with, for example, a candidate who says Jewish people fear hate because they know they should be hated. Another one who suggested that the attacks on the ambulances was a false flag and carried out, presumably by Israel. Another of your candidates who blamed Israel for the Bondi beach terrorist attack." NR (10:41.0), "A fourth candidate who said Donald Trump was, quote, owned by Jews. And most horrifying of all, although this individual has now been arrested, one of your candidates who Reposted something saying ramming a synagogue isn't anti Semitism, it's revenge." NR (10:56.8), "What are you, Zach Polanski doing to end these disgusting messages?" ZP (11:03.5), "Those messages are all unacceptable and it's important to condemn that. The Green Party are an anti racist party and it's important that we stick to our values." NR (11:11.0), "We can't just say the words were an anti racist bar to. And I've just read you out five of the most revolting comments at a time when, according to an independent advisor, we face a national emergency of anti Semitism. I'm asking you, you're not responsible for everything they say. Of course you're not." NR (11:26.3), "You can't be." ZP (11:27.3), "I am responsible, actually." NR (11:28.2), "What are you going to do about it?" ZP (11:29.0), "I am the leader of a party. I was about to finish my sentence." NR (11:31.5), "Forgive me. Go on." ZP (11:32.4), "We're an anti racist party. And so what I've already committed to doing is making sure that we have a standardised vetting process in future. And also make sure that we have compulsory training of all our candidates to make it clear that anti Semitism is completely unwelcome in the Green Party as it is in society. It is also important to say one case of anti Semitism is one too many." ZP (11:50.5), "This is a handful of cases and actually we have over 4,500 candidates, the vast, vast majority of which are doing amazing work in their communities right now, going out there to tackle the cost of living crisis, to make sure that we're funding public services and making sure that it's about people power and community, grassroots power." NR (12:05.1), "You can dismiss one or two as, just, unrepresentative. I've just read five. I could have read 20 cases of revolting anti Semitism posted by your candidates. Now you're a new leader, how are you going to avoid becoming the new Jeremy Corbyn of British politics?" ZP (12:21.5), "Well, I think me and Jeremy are very different people and there's much, you know, the question was almost inviting me to condemn Jeremy Corbyn. I think there was lots that Jeremy Corbyn was putting forward to this country that I think was really positive. We've talked about wealth taxes, about public ownership. I also think it's important, speaking, for myself right now, that we make sure that we have this vetting process, that it's really clear that anti Semitism, Islamophobia, any form of hatred or hate, crime is not welcome." NR (12:47.3), "Do you believe that Palestine is, to coin a phrase, on the ballot this Thursday?" ZP (12:52.3), "I think lots of things are on the ballot this Thursday." NR (12:54.6), "But is Palestine on the ballot? This." ZP (12:56.2), "I think it's one of the elements, as is the climate crisis. As is." NR (12:58.7), "What does it mean Palestine is on the ballot? Because. The reason I ask you is because your candidate for mayor of Lewisham says Palestine is on the ballot this Thursday. Haringey Green Party campaign launch video. You might think it'd be about bins, you might think it'd be about schools, hospitals, it might be about cleaning up the roads." NR (13:17.2), "It is a series of councillors saying, as a council, I will take all appropriate steps to, uphold the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people. Do you think council elections really should be about Palestine?" ZP (13:29.8), "I think they can be about all of those things. And I think what people have seen in this country is a genocide for two and a half years that our government is still arming, are still sharing intelligence with. And I think lots of people feel very strongly both about their local services, as they should do, and feel equally strongly about the fact that there's a reprehensible genocide happening." ZP (13:48.5), "And they vote, but the way they vote in local elections" NR (13:52.6), "should be determined by their views of Israel and Palestine." ZP (13:56.0), "I wouldn't tell anyone how their vote should be determined, but I think it's an element for lots of people in how they vote." NR (14:00.1), "And do you think that will contribute to community cohesion? Do you?" ZP (14:02.7), "I think yes, because I think, we shouldn't pit Jewish safety against a genocide in Gaza. That's conflating anti Semitism and criticism of the Israeli government. That's something Benjamin Netanyahu does regularly. And as a Jewish person, that makes me feel less safe." NR (14:16.4), "Sure. But there are lots of Jewish people who would say to you they feel unsafe if they feel that their counsellors are motivated first and foremost by Palestine. And if somebody gives that speech, for example, about Palestine being on the ballot, they are likely to think that." NR (14:34.6), "We looked for, example at Barnett Greens, where one in seven residents identify as Jewish. And it includes in its manifesto the fact that, you're standing up for Palestine. Do you think that's going to help?" ZP (14:49.0), "Well, I walk regularly on Palestinian marches with hundreds and hundreds, in fact, thousands of people, many of whom are Jewish. And there have been rabbis who have spoken out on this too. I accept, though, there are Jewish people whose views are equally as valid who, don't agree with those views." ZP (15:04.0), "And I think the job of all of us who are in public life right now is to de. Escalate tensions. And look, how do we bring people together? And I accept that's a huge challenge. And I think one of the ways we could do that is by ending our complicity in the genocide." NR (15:15.4), "Let's turn finally to another issue. We'll talk at greater length when, we're talking about the possibility of you being Prime Minister, which you have said that you would like to do. One thing that is very high on the agenda now is the soaring cost of government borrowing. What would the Greens do to cut it?" ZP (15:30.6), "Well, I think we need to make sure that we're investing. So I think there's two ways of doing that. The first is, wealth taxes, which I know we've rehearsed before, but I'll just say that's for first place." NR (15:38.4), "How does that cut government borrowing?" ZP (15:40.2), "Because ultimately it means you need to borrow less if you're." NR (15:43.0), "If you're ultimately about cutting the cost of government borrowing." ZP (15:45.5), "Yes." NR (15:45.8), "Which is soaring. It's higher than it's been any time this century because people are nervous about high spending, high taxing governments that are politically unstable." ZP (15:54.7), "I think someone who speaks brilliantly on this, who I've spoken to, is the economist Mariana Matsicatu, and she talks about the fact that a government should have a mission that should be a very clear plan of how you tackle the climate crisis, how you reduce inequality. Now, if you have a clear plan and you're borrowing for that, you're taking the market with you because they can clearly see what the return on investment is and how you're bringing money back into the." ZP (16:15.2), "That's how you reduce borrowing levels. If we don't have a plan and continue to borrow, then it feels very, very scattered, and that's why things are getting worse. We need to make sure that there's a consistent plan in place that's set out carefully that can make sure we're putting money back into our communities and investing in those communities." NR (16:29.3), "Do you think you're ready to be Prime Minister?" ZP (16:31.1), "I'm not ready right now, no. I've been leader for eight months, and there's lots of skills and lots of knowledge to get, and I think that's fine. I think I'm a human being. I'm not perfect." NR (16:38.5), "But give it two years, you will be." ZP (16:40.0), "Well, we'll see in two years time, won't we? But I'll certainly be putting in the work." NR (16:43.2), "Zach Polanski, leader of the Green Party in England and Wales, thanks very much for coming into the." ZP (16:46.3), "Thank you, Nick."

Farrukh

165,871 次观看 • 3 个月前

.Christian Rivera (el que dijo que KOI era un equipo de mierda y se dedicaba a acosar a los jugadores) me llama nena en su stream, me dice que no tengo idea de lol y que soy un cagón. Obviando la fantasmada histórica, vamos a hablar un poco de mí y de este estafador: 👇 Lo voy a hacer en inglés para que puedan salir todos sus fanboys (tres o cuatro) y para que no tenga la excusa de la traducción. Yo no necesito esconderme. Le dais al translate y pilláis rápidamente el flow. As for the question of who am I, I think it is the mark of a moron to expect your name to carry your takes. Anyone can and will make plenty of mistakes when talking about complicated and opinionated subjects such as League. I feel context is necessary if you are coming late to what is quickly becoming a shouting match. My beef with Dom is based on me accusing him of basically being a grifter. Someone pretending to understand competitive League at a high level to sell gambling content to unaware kids after, in one of his many desperate attempts to claw his way back into pseudo-relevance, he declared KOI players to be "shit" and made this a running joke within his fandom. These alleged "shit players" in a "shit team" made finals on their first split and worlds on their first year. After upgrading their midlane to Jojopyun, have just now won LEC and made MSI. 2/5 finals, 2/4 internationals and a 3-1 LEC split finals against Cap's G2. Seems to me that, after combining defamatory language with such an ill-informed professional blunder (I don't consider him a analyst but he does, so it is a professional blunder from his pretended pov), it would fall on Dominate to give a proper public explanation. Instead, he hides on his stream while accusing others of cowardice. Let's put a pin on that and come back to the subject of what have I ever done (a weak whataboutism that barely qualifies as an excuse for running a harassment campaign against rookie players). I started taking League seriously and joined the scene as a writer in 2017. By the end of that year I managed to join Mad Lions, a team that would find great success without me during 2018, being that I left within the span of two weeks. After an argument with then coach Araneae, I became disillusioned with the competitive side of League. In this argument my head coach, a veteran player and unarguably successful coach before and since, was adamant about the idea that lane matchups decide strongside. I argued that it is actually jungle windows of play that determine who should get to push the wave. Today, we all know it's a bit of a mixed bag, and winning matchups have evolved much beyond who gets to crash any given wave. We agreed that both of us were people that have a hard time letting go of our opinions and parted ways amicably. To me, what makes League a worthwhile pursuit is exploring the interesting ideas that can be built through it, not necessarily the drive to win. I left the team wanting to use content as a means to an end, as after that argument, I became obsessed with understanding the competitive jungle. It took me a year and a half, and you can call it luck, but I'm actually quite proud of the narratives I was able to push building around that knowledge. By MSI 2019, attended by at the time world champion "Ning" and mechanical prodigy "Clid", I pushed Jankos as the clear best jungler of the tournament. I understand the English speaking community has no way of knowing this, but I faced significant backlash for putting a western player above these two greats. His cover style of jungle allowed G2 to greedily succeed in getting the most of their flex-heavy drafts that often landed them on the winning side of matchups, and coasted them into a midgame where they found no match. G2 took that tournament and set a record for the quickest international finals. By the time EU legend Jankos arrived at worlds, many had them as the key player/mvp that made 2019 G2 work. This time, even though most experts had Clid as clear top 1 jungler and I had just found success (maybe luck?) through Jankos, I actually pushed Tian as the top 1. Admittedly, this one is kind of murky, since it was Doinb's understanding of midlane windows that actually had Tian play the peak of his career. Still, the fact remains that FPX brought the best jungle/river play system and ended up taking the tournament. Finally, after a clear-cut exceptional Canyon that dominated 2020 and pushed the limits of what jungle efficiency is (hard to argue against his inherent quality nor was I ever inclined to do so), I had Wei as my top jungler for 2021's MSI. This time, professional junglers (with whom I had an amicable relationship, this was not in bad faith) wrote to me privately, joking about how they were expecting for the tournament to end and Canyon to stomp Wei so they could laugh at me publically and quote-RT my tierlist. I was committing the sacrilege of putting some chinese guy above the best jungler to ever play the game, in the tournament following his peak performance. Sadly, their time never came. Wei's mastery of damage limits and unique skill with the Rumble pick (which was disgustingly broken, even if only one guy could actually play it, never mind what Phreak's winrate analysis told you) made Canyon's Morgana spam look disappointing to say the least. Bear in mind that Canyon is still in my mind the best jungler to ever play the game, he just wasn't in his best form at that particular MSI. Call it luck if you want, but bringing three dark horse takes in a row and have them all pay you back is no easy feat. Ask Dom how his KOI take is doing, I don't think he's too happy with it. I can't sit here with you and spend all day exploring every bullseye I've ever gotten (there isn't enough room in a tweet), but I can tell you a few more. Had Fnatic becoming a dysfunctional team over Razork´s transition from selfish jungler into adc lapdog, recently confirmed by Vladi in chat (I think he is a bit better than Dom at the game). Had "Nisqy will never make an international tournament ever again" after he parted ways with Elyoya, while other content creators were pushing the opposite. We had to sit for years and pretend he was enabling Elyoya to look good and not the other way around. Nisqy seems like a fun guy, I'm actually low-key a fan of his, but I don't build my takes on whose dick I can suck deep enough so that they might show up on my stream and give me credibility by association (unlike other people). I had 2023 T1 beating JDG when the narrative was JDG's royal road. How? Because since MSI 2022 I've been pushing every team to study T1's early vision system. Like, I literally said over and over again, whoever is not studying this team's early vision system is hard trolling. Recorded several videos on it. This is before Faker ever made world finals against DRX. Back when I was saying T1 had revolutionized competitive League of Legends, accusations were that T1 were washed and chokers (remember which side of that narrative jungle soloq genius IWD was on?). After they made three World's finals in a row and won two of them, it seems like I was onto something, wasn't I? I also made a very controversial video in 2022 that titles "The Second Korean Age", speaking about how T1's advancement in vision systems would push Korea ahead for years to come. It was pretty controversial back then, in 2022, when China had won 3/5 of the last world championships. Now Korea has won three years in a row, not so controversial anymore. Lucky again. However, my proudest work is not something that seems that impressive at first glance. It's called "Pyramids towards 13.19". It's a work that explores the evolution of season 13's World's metagame, drawing a paralellism between understanding a patch and the religions in the lost city of Teotihuacán, wherein they'd build towards the sky in order to get a bit closer to the gods without any possible end to that process. Just as a side note, I also have a video about how laning between turrets is sleeper op and Riot will have to nerf it eventually. T1 and some Chinese teams were toying with it last summer, but everyone focused on swaps instead (as they were easier to build and had a more solid body of working examples). I recorded my theory in 2023 MSI and watched the best teams in the world converge on it a year later. There is more stuff like this, but again, I can't list it all. Not bad for a nobody, I wonder how that compares to knowing what item is op on Volibear in terms of respectable and interesting knowledge of the game. I often get professional coaching offers, including at the LEC level, despite only having two weeks of experience on the job. I've made a habit of declining them in order to keep working on what I consider to be interesting. Other than that, I've built quite a successful private media platform centered around analytical pro League discussion (that thing everyone tells you no one actually cares for) in a dwindling ecosystem where no one understands what people care about enough to pay for. I'd say that's pretty impressive in and of itself. As far as I can see, your numbers keep going down, so maybe I can help you with that too. So at this point I wonder, at which point am I allowed to ask what has Dominate ever done? Other than harassing players, a pattern older than his beef with KOI. I remember he used to gloat and act like an absolute turd, reacting to Rekkles' tears for YouTube views back when he had that string of public breakdowns. Is this a moral standard on which he gets to call me out on the crime of (and I wish I was kidding), posting a screenshot without context and then defending the Kcorp player "Vladi" in it to my Spanish-speaking fans? What a fucking ass I am. I wish I could harass kids online, sell gambling to minors, and bully people having public breakdowns so I could have the legitimacy of a real, tried-and-true voice of the community. The absolute gall to call me a pussy while you hide behind reaction content disguised as insight, a parasite of the co-streaming era of content, while I put my best foot forward building interesting stories that no one is talking about and get proven right; over and over. How is that KOI take aging mate, are you proud of that one? Where are your deep explanations? The actual content, where is it? Other than ragebaiting I mean. I'd really love to check it out, since you are sooo good at clicking with Udyr on the NA server. I want to remind everyone, as this can't be stressed enough, that this whole beef is about a guy making a shit (joke intended) take. Posing as a respectable professional to sell gambling while completely uninformed, driving a harassment campaing against players he knows nothing about, and then being butthurt that some Spanish guy calls him out on his pattern of abuse. You see, my mistake was that he can get Challenger on Dr. Mundo or whatever the fuck he plays, which somehow turns this into a debate and not someone being called out for acting like an absolute asshole. Then it invalidates my whole career, as I don't speak 3rd grade English natively and am unwilling to leave behind my people who supported me from the beginning. All I know about you, Dom, is that you are a bully who seems to enjoy it. Believe it or not, I'm not eager to get into a screaming match while I teach you league for free, all while joining your stream that averages similar numbers (while having streaming rights for years) as mine does broadcasting a stopwatch whenever I feel like streaming once in a blue moon. I don't think it takes courage to do that. It takes pity, of which I don't have enough for you, or perhaps a morbid curiosity for whatever might you say when actually confronted by a human. But I don't have that either, since I already know what you are going to say, the same thing you always say. "One time, ten years ago, I almost was"
0:38

.Christian Rivera (el que dijo que KOI era un equipo de mierda y se dedicaba a acosar a los jugadores) me llama nena en su stream, me dice que no tengo idea de lol y que soy un cagón. Obviando la fantasmada histórica, vamos a hablar un poco de mí y de este estafador: 👇 Lo voy a hacer en inglés para que puedan salir todos sus fanboys (tres o cuatro) y para que no tenga la excusa de la traducción. Yo no necesito esconderme. Le dais al translate y pilláis rápidamente el flow. As for the question of who am I, I think it is the mark of a moron to expect your name to carry your takes. Anyone can and will make plenty of mistakes when talking about complicated and opinionated subjects such as League. I feel context is necessary if you are coming late to what is quickly becoming a shouting match. My beef with Dom is based on me accusing him of basically being a grifter. Someone pretending to understand competitive League at a high level to sell gambling content to unaware kids after, in one of his many desperate attempts to claw his way back into pseudo-relevance, he declared KOI players to be "shit" and made this a running joke within his fandom. These alleged "shit players" in a "shit team" made finals on their first split and worlds on their first year. After upgrading their midlane to Jojopyun, have just now won LEC and made MSI. 2/5 finals, 2/4 internationals and a 3-1 LEC split finals against Cap's G2. Seems to me that, after combining defamatory language with such an ill-informed professional blunder (I don't consider him a analyst but he does, so it is a professional blunder from his pretended pov), it would fall on Dominate to give a proper public explanation. Instead, he hides on his stream while accusing others of cowardice. Let's put a pin on that and come back to the subject of what have I ever done (a weak whataboutism that barely qualifies as an excuse for running a harassment campaign against rookie players). I started taking League seriously and joined the scene as a writer in 2017. By the end of that year I managed to join Mad Lions, a team that would find great success without me during 2018, being that I left within the span of two weeks. After an argument with then coach Araneae, I became disillusioned with the competitive side of League. In this argument my head coach, a veteran player and unarguably successful coach before and since, was adamant about the idea that lane matchups decide strongside. I argued that it is actually jungle windows of play that determine who should get to push the wave. Today, we all know it's a bit of a mixed bag, and winning matchups have evolved much beyond who gets to crash any given wave. We agreed that both of us were people that have a hard time letting go of our opinions and parted ways amicably. To me, what makes League a worthwhile pursuit is exploring the interesting ideas that can be built through it, not necessarily the drive to win. I left the team wanting to use content as a means to an end, as after that argument, I became obsessed with understanding the competitive jungle. It took me a year and a half, and you can call it luck, but I'm actually quite proud of the narratives I was able to push building around that knowledge. By MSI 2019, attended by at the time world champion "Ning" and mechanical prodigy "Clid", I pushed Jankos as the clear best jungler of the tournament. I understand the English speaking community has no way of knowing this, but I faced significant backlash for putting a western player above these two greats. His cover style of jungle allowed G2 to greedily succeed in getting the most of their flex-heavy drafts that often landed them on the winning side of matchups, and coasted them into a midgame where they found no match. G2 took that tournament and set a record for the quickest international finals. By the time EU legend Jankos arrived at worlds, many had them as the key player/mvp that made 2019 G2 work. This time, even though most experts had Clid as clear top 1 jungler and I had just found success (maybe luck?) through Jankos, I actually pushed Tian as the top 1. Admittedly, this one is kind of murky, since it was Doinb's understanding of midlane windows that actually had Tian play the peak of his career. Still, the fact remains that FPX brought the best jungle/river play system and ended up taking the tournament. Finally, after a clear-cut exceptional Canyon that dominated 2020 and pushed the limits of what jungle efficiency is (hard to argue against his inherent quality nor was I ever inclined to do so), I had Wei as my top jungler for 2021's MSI. This time, professional junglers (with whom I had an amicable relationship, this was not in bad faith) wrote to me privately, joking about how they were expecting for the tournament to end and Canyon to stomp Wei so they could laugh at me publically and quote-RT my tierlist. I was committing the sacrilege of putting some chinese guy above the best jungler to ever play the game, in the tournament following his peak performance. Sadly, their time never came. Wei's mastery of damage limits and unique skill with the Rumble pick (which was disgustingly broken, even if only one guy could actually play it, never mind what Phreak's winrate analysis told you) made Canyon's Morgana spam look disappointing to say the least. Bear in mind that Canyon is still in my mind the best jungler to ever play the game, he just wasn't in his best form at that particular MSI. Call it luck if you want, but bringing three dark horse takes in a row and have them all pay you back is no easy feat. Ask Dom how his KOI take is doing, I don't think he's too happy with it. I can't sit here with you and spend all day exploring every bullseye I've ever gotten (there isn't enough room in a tweet), but I can tell you a few more. Had Fnatic becoming a dysfunctional team over Razork´s transition from selfish jungler into adc lapdog, recently confirmed by Vladi in chat (I think he is a bit better than Dom at the game). Had "Nisqy will never make an international tournament ever again" after he parted ways with Elyoya, while other content creators were pushing the opposite. We had to sit for years and pretend he was enabling Elyoya to look good and not the other way around. Nisqy seems like a fun guy, I'm actually low-key a fan of his, but I don't build my takes on whose dick I can suck deep enough so that they might show up on my stream and give me credibility by association (unlike other people). I had 2023 T1 beating JDG when the narrative was JDG's royal road. How? Because since MSI 2022 I've been pushing every team to study T1's early vision system. Like, I literally said over and over again, whoever is not studying this team's early vision system is hard trolling. Recorded several videos on it. This is before Faker ever made world finals against DRX. Back when I was saying T1 had revolutionized competitive League of Legends, accusations were that T1 were washed and chokers (remember which side of that narrative jungle soloq genius IWD was on?). After they made three World's finals in a row and won two of them, it seems like I was onto something, wasn't I? I also made a very controversial video in 2022 that titles "The Second Korean Age", speaking about how T1's advancement in vision systems would push Korea ahead for years to come. It was pretty controversial back then, in 2022, when China had won 3/5 of the last world championships. Now Korea has won three years in a row, not so controversial anymore. Lucky again. However, my proudest work is not something that seems that impressive at first glance. It's called "Pyramids towards 13.19". It's a work that explores the evolution of season 13's World's metagame, drawing a paralellism between understanding a patch and the religions in the lost city of Teotihuacán, wherein they'd build towards the sky in order to get a bit closer to the gods without any possible end to that process. Just as a side note, I also have a video about how laning between turrets is sleeper op and Riot will have to nerf it eventually. T1 and some Chinese teams were toying with it last summer, but everyone focused on swaps instead (as they were easier to build and had a more solid body of working examples). I recorded my theory in 2023 MSI and watched the best teams in the world converge on it a year later. There is more stuff like this, but again, I can't list it all. Not bad for a nobody, I wonder how that compares to knowing what item is op on Volibear in terms of respectable and interesting knowledge of the game. I often get professional coaching offers, including at the LEC level, despite only having two weeks of experience on the job. I've made a habit of declining them in order to keep working on what I consider to be interesting. Other than that, I've built quite a successful private media platform centered around analytical pro League discussion (that thing everyone tells you no one actually cares for) in a dwindling ecosystem where no one understands what people care about enough to pay for. I'd say that's pretty impressive in and of itself. As far as I can see, your numbers keep going down, so maybe I can help you with that too. So at this point I wonder, at which point am I allowed to ask what has Dominate ever done? Other than harassing players, a pattern older than his beef with KOI. I remember he used to gloat and act like an absolute turd, reacting to Rekkles' tears for YouTube views back when he had that string of public breakdowns. Is this a moral standard on which he gets to call me out on the crime of (and I wish I was kidding), posting a screenshot without context and then defending the Kcorp player "Vladi" in it to my Spanish-speaking fans? What a fucking ass I am. I wish I could harass kids online, sell gambling to minors, and bully people having public breakdowns so I could have the legitimacy of a real, tried-and-true voice of the community. The absolute gall to call me a pussy while you hide behind reaction content disguised as insight, a parasite of the co-streaming era of content, while I put my best foot forward building interesting stories that no one is talking about and get proven right; over and over. How is that KOI take aging mate, are you proud of that one? Where are your deep explanations? The actual content, where is it? Other than ragebaiting I mean. I'd really love to check it out, since you are sooo good at clicking with Udyr on the NA server. I want to remind everyone, as this can't be stressed enough, that this whole beef is about a guy making a shit (joke intended) take. Posing as a respectable professional to sell gambling while completely uninformed, driving a harassment campaing against players he knows nothing about, and then being butthurt that some Spanish guy calls him out on his pattern of abuse. You see, my mistake was that he can get Challenger on Dr. Mundo or whatever the fuck he plays, which somehow turns this into a debate and not someone being called out for acting like an absolute asshole. Then it invalidates my whole career, as I don't speak 3rd grade English natively and am unwilling to leave behind my people who supported me from the beginning. All I know about you, Dom, is that you are a bully who seems to enjoy it. Believe it or not, I'm not eager to get into a screaming match while I teach you league for free, all while joining your stream that averages similar numbers (while having streaming rights for years) as mine does broadcasting a stopwatch whenever I feel like streaming once in a blue moon. I don't think it takes courage to do that. It takes pity, of which I don't have enough for you, or perhaps a morbid curiosity for whatever might you say when actually confronted by a human. But I don't have that either, since I already know what you are going to say, the same thing you always say. "One time, ten years ago, I almost was"

Manu 𓃵𓃶

1,171,704 次观看 • 1 年前

"Come on, folks. Do we see what's playing out here? Marbury v. Mad might have just brought down the Commissioner of the Boston Police Department." - Towel, November 6, 2025 Rule #1 in Massachusetts politics right now; Do not mess with Attorney Corey Hopkins. She's going to get barred here just to reform the government (then I'll become her paralegal and we'll submit public records requests all day). Good plan. TRANSCRIPT (from Towel's coverage of the letter in question, uncovered by Attorney Hopkins); Hello and good evening. It is just past 6 p.m. on Monday, November 3rd, 2025. My name is Grant Smith-Ellis, and I'm back with you again for another developing news update, this time related to Boston Police Commissioner Cox responding to a developing series of scandals, in particular related to former Boston Police Officer—well, first former Canton Police Officer, then former Boston Police Officer—Kelly Dever. Now, Kelly Dever was an integral witness during the John O'Keefe and Karen Read trial about one specific series of events in the early morning of January 29, 2022—not really related to John's death per se, but related to the then-chief of the Canton Police Department, Ken Berkowitz, who was also potentially the person that went to the FBI about Brian Tully's MSP unit, Massachusetts State Police unit, detailed to the Norfolk DA, who were the same people that investigated Karen Read for John's death. Berkowitz was the same person who apparently went to the FBI in 2022 about Tully's unit through John Fanning covering up Sandra Birchmore's death at the hands of former Stoughton PD officer Matthew Farwell. Okay, Ken Berkowitz and Brian Higgins—then undercover ATF agent who himself had been in a relationship of some kind, we'll call it that, with Karen in the months before John's death. That's a whole story we will not get into. The point is, Higgins and Berkowitz go into the sally port. Now, Kelly Dever had been working since, I think it was 12 a.m. on January 28th. She worked—let me make sure I get this right now—she worked at 12 p.m., noon on January 28th to 8 p.m. Then she worked the 8 p.m. to 4 a.m. shift. Okay, she was doing 16 hours over those two days. At like 1:30 a.m., she saw Berkowitz and Higgins—or around there, maybe a little later—go into the area, an area of the Canton PD. Then—and we're going to find out—she had a meeting with Boston Police Commissioner Cox. Now, why did Commissioner Cox get himself in trouble? Well, not because of the interview we're going to watch, but instead because of an interview about a year ago where he said he knew nothing about the Kelly Dever situation or the Karen Read case. All right, now we're going to quickly come to find out that what we're about to hear from the commissioner is not the best answer in light of this little document found by the incredible Marbury v. Madison on X, Corey A. Hopkins, a business litigator based in North Carolina. Towel really likes Marbury v. Madison because, first of all, Marbury v. Madison is an awesome case, and it entrenched the supremacy of the judiciary as to saying what the law is by virtue of the Constitution. Solved a very complex problem related to the Judiciary Act of 1789 and, in particular, the emergence of political parties in 1796 and, in particular, 1800, and a slew of last-minute appointments by President Adams and a refusal by President Jefferson to commission—or one of the refusal by Jefferson's Secretary of State Madison to commission a justice of the peace. But it really was about the supremacy of the judiciary branch. Marbury v. Madison uses a lot of FOIAs, and what you're going to see right here is a FOIA request that resulted in this wonderful little document. And what does this show? All right, this document shows, folks, a letter from Stephen J. Kelleher, who's with the White Collar Public Corruption and Civil Rights Division of the FBI in Boston. It is a letter that Marbury v. Madison obtained via a FOIA, and it shows the DOJ reaching out to Commissioner Cox and saying, "Sir, hope all is well. Just a reminder—this was on February 22nd, 2024. The documents were released to the DA's office late last night." This has to do with federal documents about the investigation of John's death by the MSP unit run by Brian Tully working for the Norfolk DA. "The officer we spoke about is Kelly Dever. If you have any questions at all, feel free to call me. Vr. Steve." Okay, folks, this proves that Commissioner Cox was told about Kelly Dever and documents related to her testimony and what she saw Higgins and Berkowitz doing—which I don't think was related to John's death, but it's just embarrassing for Higgins. He was an undercover ATF agent, and embarrassing for Berkowitz. And although Berkowitz is now dead, he was either dying or not dead in 2024. And clearly, this was embarrassing, okay, to the Canton Police Chief, to the Boston Police, to Higgins, to all these people. All right. And so we see here, Cox knows about it. Cox then goes on a few months later—I think it was either after, I think it was right after Karen's second trial, but it was some months after this initial email was sent to Cox. And Cox, in his infinite wisdom, tells Boston 25 or Channel 5 or whatever it was at a news conference that he's basically never heard of Kelly Dever or the Karen Read and John O'Keefe case. Okay, that was a stupid thing to say because then this FOIA comes out in recent weeks. That leads to Alan Jackson to send a Brady letter to Mayor Michelle Wu, the Democratic mayor of Boston running unopposed in the coming election, saying that Cox should be on the Brady list. I think it was—yes, because Cox was not forthcoming about what he was told by the feds about Dever. Okay, now this is Cox's response. I just want to show you how bad of a response this is. Okay, this is a clip via Boston 25, just Cox's comment on these new developments, which—although Alan Jackson's Brady letter is what Cox was asked for comment on—even Alan Jackson himself has rightfully so given credit to Marbury v. Madison for their excellent find on this FOIA document that was unearthed. And this could cost Cox his position. All right, the Democrats in Boston already have the eye of President Trump. The DOJ is all over this unit, in my opinion, and the cover-up of Birchmore's death. Look at the DOJ's pattern of indictments, okay? Recently, not just the Jessica LeClair leaks, but also Sheriff Tompkins and other major Democrats. Look at what's going on here, folks. Think about the larger picture—the most recent indictment, the superseding indictment of Matt Farwell for the murder of Sandra Birchmore's unborn child. It's all coming together. And Commissioner Cox's answer is bad. And that's why I want to analyze it. It's not just like inappropriate. It is a bad, bad, bad answer. When I heard it, I had to immediately make a video to analyze it because that's how bad this answer is. It's short, but I'm going to tell you how bad it is after we listen to it. "But what I need, you know, it's not to be asked this question ever again because it's not—it has to pertain to anything to do with the police department. My condolences to the O'Keefe family for, you know, what they've gone through. And because we did lose a department member. But outside of that, this has nothing to do with us. And I'm not going to speak with this again." Okay, let me just make something clear. I'm not saying he was wrong. It's not wrong to invoke John's name. But doing it that way—that's grotesque. Okay, he didn't answer the question. He basically refused to do so. And again, if you didn't hear the statement—although I'm sure you did—he said, "What I need is to not be asked this question ever again pertaining to anything to do with the police department." What? "My condolences to the O'Keefe family for what they've gone through because we did lose a department member." John O'Keefe was an honorable member of the Boston PD and the SA offenders unit. "But outside of that, this has nothing to do with us, the Boston PD, and I'm not going to speak on this again." No, no, no, no—that you just cost yourself your job right there. I'm sorry. That was a terrible, terrible answer. I'm sorry for the volume. I'm just running it back. Terrible answer. The worst possible answer. You may well have just cost yourself your job because you ducked the question. Everyone knows that the question is about this document. Anyone following this knows. The implications are what Dever knew about Berkowitz and Higgins, and maybe that's not the most serious thing. But as President Nixon said, it is not the crime, it's the cover-up. Dever, whatever she did—not wanting to talk about certain things about Higgins and Berkowitz, unrelated to John's death, just because it's kind of embarrassing—that is not a problem really. It's a minor thing. You know what's a big deal? Dever definitely got Brady-listed or whatever because her testimony was a little weird. I think Alan Jackson also pressured her a little bit. But whatever, that's not the point here. Cox's response—that was bad. That was bad PR. That's like the kind of thing when Prince Andrew was forced to go out and do an interview with BBC One about Epstein, and it just cost him all his titles because he got no PR help; he got sandbagged. That kind of thing—somebody didn't prep him, or the people he was talking to didn't even think this would come up. That's a horrible answer. Twenty seconds can cost you your career if you have done something bad and you answer a tough question like that. It's defensive; it shows you have something to hide; it undermines people's faith in your ability to answer those kind of questions. That's the biggest problem for Commissioner Cox here. Instead of inspiring confidence and making it look like it was nothing or it was just a routine, he couldn't even address the fact that he was made aware in February, in particular, about Kelly Dever and he had knowledge—he had a meeting with her. Let's be clear: He put her on his schedule the very next day. Not only did he have recipient knowledge of what was going on with the federal investigation and the John O'Keefe and Karen Read case—Dever got called into his office the next day, which of course Cox initially tried to play off as just some routine meeting, as if he meets with all 2,600 or whatever of the Boston police force. No. Come on, folks. Come on, folks. Do we see what's playing out here? Marbury v. Madison might have just brought down the Commissioner of the Boston Police Department. My name is Grant Smith-Ellis. Enjoy the rest of your Monday. We'll see what other news comes in today. Sean Good on suspension. Michael Proctor's cell phone gate engulfing the world in a conflagration. Little towel basically running down the street from the masses, trying to insulate himself from the fallout of this God-forsaken situation. Institutional reform is coming—to the Norfolk DA, hopefully throughout the state police—so that the good people in law enforcement can keep helping the vulnerable and that the exploited, no matter how much pressure they come under, continue to speak their truth. And let me just say this: Whenever we stand against the flow of opinion on hotly contested issues, a man, a woman, and a Towel—do what they must in spite of the personal consequences, in spite of the dangers and obstacles and pressures. For that is the basis of all human morality. We will be there for each other in times of struggle. We will be side by side in times of joy. And when everything is on the line and when our principles matter the most, there will be no price too high to pay to center the voices of the unheard, to bring justice to the vulnerable, and to reform this God-forsaken justice system in Massachusetts so that we can all hand down a structural system to our future generations that is worthy of our Constitution, that is worthy of our collective intelligence, and that is worthy of the due reverence we all should be providing to the pursuit of justice. My name is Grant Smith-Ellis. Until next time, you're a towel, I am as well. Be well. God bless.
12:38

"Come on, folks. Do we see what's playing out here? Marbury v. Mad might have just brought down the Commissioner of the Boston Police Department." - Towel, November 6, 2025 Rule #1 in Massachusetts politics right now; Do not mess with Attorney Corey Hopkins. She's going to get barred here just to reform the government (then I'll become her paralegal and we'll submit public records requests all day). Good plan. TRANSCRIPT (from Towel's coverage of the letter in question, uncovered by Attorney Hopkins); Hello and good evening. It is just past 6 p.m. on Monday, November 3rd, 2025. My name is Grant Smith-Ellis, and I'm back with you again for another developing news update, this time related to Boston Police Commissioner Cox responding to a developing series of scandals, in particular related to former Boston Police Officer—well, first former Canton Police Officer, then former Boston Police Officer—Kelly Dever. Now, Kelly Dever was an integral witness during the John O'Keefe and Karen Read trial about one specific series of events in the early morning of January 29, 2022—not really related to John's death per se, but related to the then-chief of the Canton Police Department, Ken Berkowitz, who was also potentially the person that went to the FBI about Brian Tully's MSP unit, Massachusetts State Police unit, detailed to the Norfolk DA, who were the same people that investigated Karen Read for John's death. Berkowitz was the same person who apparently went to the FBI in 2022 about Tully's unit through John Fanning covering up Sandra Birchmore's death at the hands of former Stoughton PD officer Matthew Farwell. Okay, Ken Berkowitz and Brian Higgins—then undercover ATF agent who himself had been in a relationship of some kind, we'll call it that, with Karen in the months before John's death. That's a whole story we will not get into. The point is, Higgins and Berkowitz go into the sally port. Now, Kelly Dever had been working since, I think it was 12 a.m. on January 28th. She worked—let me make sure I get this right now—she worked at 12 p.m., noon on January 28th to 8 p.m. Then she worked the 8 p.m. to 4 a.m. shift. Okay, she was doing 16 hours over those two days. At like 1:30 a.m., she saw Berkowitz and Higgins—or around there, maybe a little later—go into the area, an area of the Canton PD. Then—and we're going to find out—she had a meeting with Boston Police Commissioner Cox. Now, why did Commissioner Cox get himself in trouble? Well, not because of the interview we're going to watch, but instead because of an interview about a year ago where he said he knew nothing about the Kelly Dever situation or the Karen Read case. All right, now we're going to quickly come to find out that what we're about to hear from the commissioner is not the best answer in light of this little document found by the incredible Marbury v. Madison on X, Corey A. Hopkins, a business litigator based in North Carolina. Towel really likes Marbury v. Madison because, first of all, Marbury v. Madison is an awesome case, and it entrenched the supremacy of the judiciary as to saying what the law is by virtue of the Constitution. Solved a very complex problem related to the Judiciary Act of 1789 and, in particular, the emergence of political parties in 1796 and, in particular, 1800, and a slew of last-minute appointments by President Adams and a refusal by President Jefferson to commission—or one of the refusal by Jefferson's Secretary of State Madison to commission a justice of the peace. But it really was about the supremacy of the judiciary branch. Marbury v. Madison uses a lot of FOIAs, and what you're going to see right here is a FOIA request that resulted in this wonderful little document. And what does this show? All right, this document shows, folks, a letter from Stephen J. Kelleher, who's with the White Collar Public Corruption and Civil Rights Division of the FBI in Boston. It is a letter that Marbury v. Madison obtained via a FOIA, and it shows the DOJ reaching out to Commissioner Cox and saying, "Sir, hope all is well. Just a reminder—this was on February 22nd, 2024. The documents were released to the DA's office late last night." This has to do with federal documents about the investigation of John's death by the MSP unit run by Brian Tully working for the Norfolk DA. "The officer we spoke about is Kelly Dever. If you have any questions at all, feel free to call me. Vr. Steve." Okay, folks, this proves that Commissioner Cox was told about Kelly Dever and documents related to her testimony and what she saw Higgins and Berkowitz doing—which I don't think was related to John's death, but it's just embarrassing for Higgins. He was an undercover ATF agent, and embarrassing for Berkowitz. And although Berkowitz is now dead, he was either dying or not dead in 2024. And clearly, this was embarrassing, okay, to the Canton Police Chief, to the Boston Police, to Higgins, to all these people. All right. And so we see here, Cox knows about it. Cox then goes on a few months later—I think it was either after, I think it was right after Karen's second trial, but it was some months after this initial email was sent to Cox. And Cox, in his infinite wisdom, tells Boston 25 or Channel 5 or whatever it was at a news conference that he's basically never heard of Kelly Dever or the Karen Read and John O'Keefe case. Okay, that was a stupid thing to say because then this FOIA comes out in recent weeks. That leads to Alan Jackson to send a Brady letter to Mayor Michelle Wu, the Democratic mayor of Boston running unopposed in the coming election, saying that Cox should be on the Brady list. I think it was—yes, because Cox was not forthcoming about what he was told by the feds about Dever. Okay, now this is Cox's response. I just want to show you how bad of a response this is. Okay, this is a clip via Boston 25, just Cox's comment on these new developments, which—although Alan Jackson's Brady letter is what Cox was asked for comment on—even Alan Jackson himself has rightfully so given credit to Marbury v. Madison for their excellent find on this FOIA document that was unearthed. And this could cost Cox his position. All right, the Democrats in Boston already have the eye of President Trump. The DOJ is all over this unit, in my opinion, and the cover-up of Birchmore's death. Look at the DOJ's pattern of indictments, okay? Recently, not just the Jessica LeClair leaks, but also Sheriff Tompkins and other major Democrats. Look at what's going on here, folks. Think about the larger picture—the most recent indictment, the superseding indictment of Matt Farwell for the murder of Sandra Birchmore's unborn child. It's all coming together. And Commissioner Cox's answer is bad. And that's why I want to analyze it. It's not just like inappropriate. It is a bad, bad, bad answer. When I heard it, I had to immediately make a video to analyze it because that's how bad this answer is. It's short, but I'm going to tell you how bad it is after we listen to it. "But what I need, you know, it's not to be asked this question ever again because it's not—it has to pertain to anything to do with the police department. My condolences to the O'Keefe family for, you know, what they've gone through. And because we did lose a department member. But outside of that, this has nothing to do with us. And I'm not going to speak with this again." Okay, let me just make something clear. I'm not saying he was wrong. It's not wrong to invoke John's name. But doing it that way—that's grotesque. Okay, he didn't answer the question. He basically refused to do so. And again, if you didn't hear the statement—although I'm sure you did—he said, "What I need is to not be asked this question ever again pertaining to anything to do with the police department." What? "My condolences to the O'Keefe family for what they've gone through because we did lose a department member." John O'Keefe was an honorable member of the Boston PD and the SA offenders unit. "But outside of that, this has nothing to do with us, the Boston PD, and I'm not going to speak on this again." No, no, no, no—that you just cost yourself your job right there. I'm sorry. That was a terrible, terrible answer. I'm sorry for the volume. I'm just running it back. Terrible answer. The worst possible answer. You may well have just cost yourself your job because you ducked the question. Everyone knows that the question is about this document. Anyone following this knows. The implications are what Dever knew about Berkowitz and Higgins, and maybe that's not the most serious thing. But as President Nixon said, it is not the crime, it's the cover-up. Dever, whatever she did—not wanting to talk about certain things about Higgins and Berkowitz, unrelated to John's death, just because it's kind of embarrassing—that is not a problem really. It's a minor thing. You know what's a big deal? Dever definitely got Brady-listed or whatever because her testimony was a little weird. I think Alan Jackson also pressured her a little bit. But whatever, that's not the point here. Cox's response—that was bad. That was bad PR. That's like the kind of thing when Prince Andrew was forced to go out and do an interview with BBC One about Epstein, and it just cost him all his titles because he got no PR help; he got sandbagged. That kind of thing—somebody didn't prep him, or the people he was talking to didn't even think this would come up. That's a horrible answer. Twenty seconds can cost you your career if you have done something bad and you answer a tough question like that. It's defensive; it shows you have something to hide; it undermines people's faith in your ability to answer those kind of questions. That's the biggest problem for Commissioner Cox here. Instead of inspiring confidence and making it look like it was nothing or it was just a routine, he couldn't even address the fact that he was made aware in February, in particular, about Kelly Dever and he had knowledge—he had a meeting with her. Let's be clear: He put her on his schedule the very next day. Not only did he have recipient knowledge of what was going on with the federal investigation and the John O'Keefe and Karen Read case—Dever got called into his office the next day, which of course Cox initially tried to play off as just some routine meeting, as if he meets with all 2,600 or whatever of the Boston police force. No. Come on, folks. Come on, folks. Do we see what's playing out here? Marbury v. Madison might have just brought down the Commissioner of the Boston Police Department. My name is Grant Smith-Ellis. Enjoy the rest of your Monday. We'll see what other news comes in today. Sean Good on suspension. Michael Proctor's cell phone gate engulfing the world in a conflagration. Little towel basically running down the street from the masses, trying to insulate himself from the fallout of this God-forsaken situation. Institutional reform is coming—to the Norfolk DA, hopefully throughout the state police—so that the good people in law enforcement can keep helping the vulnerable and that the exploited, no matter how much pressure they come under, continue to speak their truth. And let me just say this: Whenever we stand against the flow of opinion on hotly contested issues, a man, a woman, and a Towel—do what they must in spite of the personal consequences, in spite of the dangers and obstacles and pressures. For that is the basis of all human morality. We will be there for each other in times of struggle. We will be side by side in times of joy. And when everything is on the line and when our principles matter the most, there will be no price too high to pay to center the voices of the unheard, to bring justice to the vulnerable, and to reform this God-forsaken justice system in Massachusetts so that we can all hand down a structural system to our future generations that is worthy of our Constitution, that is worthy of our collective intelligence, and that is worthy of the due reverence we all should be providing to the pursuit of justice. My name is Grant Smith-Ellis. Until next time, you're a towel, I am as well. Be well. God bless.

Grant Smith Ellis

13,006 次观看 • 7 个月前