dirtydog

I imagine a lot of people signed up over the last 18 months to post in this very thread. Your post is another personal attack rather than addressing what I actually said. You can do better than this. Asking questions = 'disruption'. Really?

There is ample evidence that they are. It doesn't mean it's because of the reasons in that video though. The above link to court cases is very instructive. If this court case happened then such a detailed report as is provided on a site such as that will clear up the debate one way or the other.

You (that video) can't just claim something and then call people shills when they ask if evidence for it being true exists beyond the video itself. People here believe the video. Okay, fine. I am just asking, did you verify it yourself? Or do you adopt the position that a video must be true unless someone else, like me for example, proves it isn't? That isn't logical mate. By the way, calling me a shill is very silly and childish, please stop it.

Yes my position is that I try to think rather than just automatically believe what a random bitchute video with two unknown people says mate. Sorry if that offends you, I thought we were supposed to be independent thinkers here who question, rather than just another echo chamber.

How do YOU know what is being said in that video is true? That the restrictions are being lifted because of the reasons THEY say? I'm going to assume you have no idea but you like the sound of it so you've decided it must be true. If you have actually independently verified the veracity of what they are saying though, then be forthcoming with that evidence.

It's a big conspiracy by world governments, but they somehow let one obscure judge in a court somewhere decide an entire country's restrictions must be lifted, and this is true because it's in a bitchute video. This is what confirmation bias looks like.

See the answer I gave to Morpheus above. Try to read what I actually say and then it will make more sense to you.

I do try to think pal. Just provide me with evidence of what that video says happened, other than the two random people in a bitchute video saying it. That's the first step to convincing people outside this echo chamber.

I already answered this point preemptively which you either missed or ignored, I don't know which. I expected someone would mistake correlation for causation because of confirmation bias, as you are doing, and point to the already long announced lifting of restrictions and link it to some obscure court case for which you can provide no direct evidence of happening, or the outcome, or the reasons for the outcome.

Yes friend, I am English and I speak it natively. I don't need to prove anything, the onus is on those making wild claims to do that isn't it. You misunderstand about the MSM. I don't trust the MSM, of course. But it doesn't mean I trust everything I see on a random bitchute video either. The point is simple: if what that video said was true then we would know about it and it would be impossible to keep secret. If it is still secret that restrictions have been lifted then guess what, THEY HAVEN'T BEEN LIFTED have they? Think.

Looks like he abused steroids potentially, judging by the size of him in some of the photos. I agree the ventilator usage is also questionable as it is known to have been directly responsible for many deaths as it puts too much strain on people's lungs.

Those videos of people waffling won't convince anyone of anything that they aren't already convinced of beforehand. Information needs to be imparted in simple language, succinctly in as few words as possible, not a five minute load of waffling in a sensational tabloid TV channel style. The video is easily debunked - I assume, and feel free to prove me wrong, I would love to be - by the fact there is no MSM news saying it. If it had actually been 'proven' that Covid was a 'hoax' and all restrictions were dropped as a result of this court case...... that is not something the powers that be would be ABLE to keep secret, is it? So let's hear it. Bear in mind, if the powers that be do not say all restrictions are dropped, then they aren't. I am well aware (I googled!) that they are withdrawing some restrictions anyway. But not as a result of this court case. And not ALL restrictions.

Okay I'll be that guy... I watched it for a while (not every minute) and was waiting for some amazing facts which never came. It was just two people talking, without any other proof or links? Did I miss them? Just because someone won in court because the government failed to present appropriate evidence is not the same as saying it's proof of a hoax. This is the sort of thing which makes Covid sceptics look easily fooled and debunked.

Typical doublespeak then, it literally is the very definition of discrimination to treat one group worse than another in this way. "We're PROBABLY not venturing into discrimination" - probably not? Shows that the 'law' can be made up as they go along and is highly subjective and malleable, depending on whatever outcome they want.

Not sure if this was posted yet. Gove says people who don't get vaccinated are selfish. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-57987016 Nope, expecting other people to put questionable experimental drugs in their bodes is selfish pal.

It's not an illusion, you just have to open your eyes when you go outside, especially in England. I don't mean 'we literally cannot possibly squeeze another person in' though, which perhaps is your definition. England is one of the most densely populated places on Earth and the quality of life here is less than it should be because of that. We need space to grow food and for drainage amongst other things, you know, to stop homes flooding and the like. The 'no vacancies' sign should have gone up in the 1950s, then Britain wouldn't have turned into a shithole.

Japan and SK don't need to have the high population levels they currently have, and nor do we. A lower birth rate is only a temporary problem which will resolve itself with a generation or so, ie. 'the ageing population' and allegedly not enough younger people to pay and care for them. So what, we import millions of people who are hopelessly incompatible instead, and are usually net tax burdens, and think that will solve the problem do we? And just ignore that the immigrants will also get old and make the eventual problem even bigger. Japan and SK are right to resist multiculturalism and mass immigration which have been a disaster for the West. They need smaller populations in future in order to provide enough power and food for them to keep the lights on and feed themselves. More mouths to feed and more power generation is a far more serious and permanent problem than the temporary and perfectly manageable one of the 'ageing population'. The UK should have no more than 15-20 million people, not 70m and counting. Even 15-20m would make us more densely populated especially in England, than most other countries in the world. To keep deliberately increasing it sharply each year even while we need to import food and energy, and making that problem bigger each year, is absolutely criminal. And we were never asked if we wanted it to happen (because they knew we'd say NO).

Overpopulation does need to be controlled, especially on this small island of Great Britain. Boris Johnson is doing nothing to stop that, in fact immigration under the Tories is higher than ever and has been relentlessly for over a decade. Huge illegal immigration, all approved by the entire British establishment. Even vaster legal immigration, year after year after year. Also we import the sorts of people who have big families and then pay them benefits to breed them. It's a funny kind of population control.

Yep just like 'Tommy Robinson' who has fooled many working class British people into thinking he is on our side when in reality he taints any cause he is associated with, to a degree which must surely be intentional as nobody could be that stupid over and over again.

Controlled opposition. By associating 'controversial' figures with the anti-vaccination side, like they associated her with the anti-mass immigration side and then get her saying stupid things like 'we need a final solution', so she makes the rest of us look like 'Nazis' by association because we don't want millions of hostile immigrants coming to take over our towns and cities. The best way to discredit a cause is to defend it badly.

Another completely biased and hysterical article from the BBC. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-57733540 So half a million died 'with' Covid, not necessarily of it. The BBC does its usual trick of stating scary sounding statistics out of context (in fact, 1.4 million people die each year in Brazil normally) and doesn't tell us how many people actually died 'of' Covid and what the actual excess death toll is. They also use weasel words 'many' people are against Bolsonaro, but doesn't say who those people are - his enemies presumably, like the BBC who call him 'far-right' which as well as being a white male naturally makes him a prime target. Brazil is densely populated and has over 200 million people, of course the death toll is going to be higher than somewhere like sparsely populated New Zealand with its wonderful 'progressive' prime minister who apparently is very clever for not having many Covid cases in a small country in the middle of nowhere.

I referenced this in a Daily Mail Covid article comments section recently. I just said that a medical study was published recently which found that for every three lives the vaccines supposedly save, the vaccines themselves kill two people. Immediately I got responses which completely dismissed it out of hand, saying it was 'rubbish' and that no such study had been published. They didn't even think to pause and consider if it might be true. I see this has subsequently had an 'expression of concern' and then a 'retraction' published. I expect the hosting site didn't approve of the content. Nor, of course, has it ever appeared in any mainstream news source. I doubt any such study will ever be done, at least not honestly and in good faith.