In terms of dissemination of probative information, it is a moral duty to bring in as many credible sources as possible in order to challenge the pedaled narrative and, indeed to challenge it's integrity.

Is it responsible to blindly accept the official line without challenge or scrutiny?

Often it is not until long after the event that disinformation & misleading propaganda comes to light - WMDs in Iraq comes to mind or perhaps the lack of suitable military equipment exposed by the Chilcot enquiry...

Information is king & control of it is a powerful tool - the Jim Morrison quote 'He who controls the media controls the masses' is quite intuitive and that has never been more relevant than today with Social media and 'news' at the touch of a fingertip...

Lockdowns & masks being implemented under the guise of 'protecting' public health, whilst at the same time, tens of thousands suffer & die from other illnesses or mental health issues, (including our veterans & elderly) caused by or exacerbated directly due to the alleged protective measures preventing treatment or delaying it - there's a bitter irony in that.

Surely allowing the alternative view to be given air-time is a critical thing, not conspiracy theories, but serious, credible questions that challenge the populist view can only be a productive early warning system to prevent potential harm.

History has taught us that it is as not only important to highlight credible voices of dissent, but potentially disastrous to ignore them or seek to suffocate them.

Hindsight is 20/20 they say & some of the bravest people in history have gone against the official versions, Schindler springs to mind...

In the face of such uncertainty is caution not the best route?

Are we not duty-bound to ask the questions of the given narrative when so much is at stake, this is not about spurious You-Tube videos of personal opinion, but sharing logical & relevant counter-information from reliable & trusted sources that ensure accountability and allow the public to assess their options rather than being manhandled over a finish line that may, in retrospect be somewhere they didn't want to go.

We will continue to look at all the angles and share credible information from the likes of the FT, BMJ, Lancet etc. that seek only to inform as many as want to read it, information is crucial for all.

We do not seek to wipe anything from the face of the earth, other than the systematic removal of our civil liberties and unchallenged misinformation coming from our elected representatives.

People state the so-called 'vaccine' is not mandatory as that would be illegal.... ha - not that any illegal restrictions have been introduced since March 2020have they...

Even if we don't get mandated, there's such a thing in law as coercion - so by restricting an individual's civil rights, such as freedoms of movement, assembly, protest etc for those who haven't had a non-mandatory vaccination, leads to them being effectively 'Coerced' into having it, to be free to access some or all of their otherwise redacted fundamental rights, therefore making vaccination as good as mandatory by means of illegal coercion.

Once again we come back to our raison d'être - freedom of choice, but this MUST come with the guarantee of non-discrimination as laid out in the Equality Act 2010 & the right to personal privacy under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 2008, no shaming or guilting - a thing employed by many against those who refuse to comply although they may not do it so quickly if they realised it could well be construed as a 'Hate Crime' under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

One makes a choice to work in a particular place & obviously choose to abide by the requirements, otherwise it's a free choice not to do it.

To restrict necessary movement on a coercive basis goes against the constitutional rights of the people and that's not acceptable.

The fundamental right to freedom of movement & association cannot depend on an untested vaccine, otherwise the non-mandatory status of said vaccine is worthless.

Do not conflate necessary freedoms with non-essential choices that have always carried caveats - working in a particular job often means abiding by certain dress codes, such as uniforms or suits and if you don't like them - work elsewhere, however walking to the shops, going to meetings, visiting family or other such freedoms do not require you to accept forced or coerced vaccination for a disease that is 99.7% survivable - no more than would enforced influenza vaccines.

We are talking here about restrictions that may be imposed on the public, effectively removing the right to do things without coercive measures - it makes a mockery of the precedent of law and the basic civil rights of the individual.

You go ahead and wear what you want, worship who you want & believe what you want, but don't enforce your beliefs, gods or any other tenet on me or anyone else who doesn't want it.

When the beliefs of one impact the life of another who doesn't necessarily hold those same beliefs, then there is an unacceptable intrusion - in the same way that the belief of a christian on the morality of abortion should not affect the rights of another who does not ascribe to that belief and therein lies the problem, the forcing of one unsubstantiated & spurious belief on another in a way that impacts their lives.

Freedom to choose is paramount - we do not tell anyone to either wear or not wear a mask and would not dream of doing so, so conversely we do not accept anyone demanding others should do so.

Changing minds isn't the objective, supplying the foundation of a reasoned thought process prior to engaging in what might later be found to have been a poor decision is - this information is for the elucidation of those who might find it helpful - we don't ask for anyone to take it all as undeniable, we will leave that to the authorities, they are the ones demanding blind acceptance, we hope only to give the other side, the side they are hell-bent on silencing for whatever nefarious reasons.

Question everything & assess only on the basis of an even-sided argument, to do otherwise is to decide a case on one version of the story - and this is an important tenet of the common law we live under.