Two-and-a-half years ago, I sent the below letter to my local council. Their response was profoundly inadequate, and all communications I have sent to them since have been ignored. In respect of the events of the last three years, and with the truth about the vaccines rapidly coming to mainstream prominence, I think it might be time for a follow-up... I republish my original letter below.
22nd July 2020
Dear Cllr. Shabir Pandor, Jacqui Gedman, and Rachel Spencer-Henshall,
Re: Coronavirus COVID-19 Update
I received through my letterbox today an unsolicited correspondence, addressed only to "The Occupier" and with the above-referenced title, signed by yourselves.
As you make a number of very extreme claims in your letter, followed by demands that I modify my behaviour in extraordinary and unprecedented ways, and as I as a taxpayer am bankrolling this correspondence campaign (which must have cost we taxpayers at least £100,000, a princely sum whilst the country plunges into the worst recession in 300 years), I feel obliged to request some further information from you.
In the first instance, I am perplexed and concerned by the language used. You say: "Everyone needs to follow the rules on social distancing, handwashing and isolating." Please can you define what "needs" and "rules" mean in this context? What are "rules"? They are not laws, and the government guidelines on social distancing, handwashing and isolating are just that - guidelines, not legal obligations. So I ask for precise clarity on what you are purporting to convey, as it appears to me that you are being intentionally ambiguous with language in order to generate the impression these guidelines are the law and that not adhering to them would criminalise somebody, when in fact - as you are no doubt well aware - this is not the case.
Deciding to abide by these guidelines or not is entirely voluntary, and it is incumbent on you as a publicly-funded body to make this unambiguously clear in your communications with the public, including and especially vulnerable members of the public who could be left very distressed by the insinuation they are breaking the law if they choose not to abide by these guidelines. It concerns me very deeply to think of the impact your comminatory correspondence could have on fragile individuals, such as the elderly, those with learning disabilities or suffering mental health complaints - the latter being an ever-increasing group in these extraordinarily challenging times.
You go on to suggest in your letter that the reason people "need to" follow these "rules" is that you feel doing so will reduce the spread of a virus you refer to as COVID-19. As you are of the opinion this virus is a serious enough threat to justify your issuing draconian diktats as to what people may and may not do with their bodies, up to and including hugging members of their own family, I presume you have unequivocal proof that this virus actually exists. If you do, please share it with me, because as yet, no such proof exists, and this is the subject of a current challenge to the British government from top scientists including Dr Kevin Corbett, Piers Corbyn, David Crowe, Dr Andrew Kaufman, Dr David Rasnick and Professor Roger Watson. Please see here for more information:
You then go on to issue a number of arbitrary and deeply disturbing demands, regarding people refraining from touching loved ones (when human touch is known to be a vital component of psychological good health, something that is more important than ever at a time when mental health is being severely challenged), and wearing "face coverings" (or "muzzles", as the journalist Peter Hitchens calls them) which restrict optimal oxygen flow, have a number of significant and potentially severely detrimental effects on health, and have no proven effect on preventing the transmission of a virus that may or may not exist.
If you believe otherwise, please show me the studies that unequivocally prove your assertions, because they are notable by their absence in your letter.
Your letter continues, "[t}hanks to your efforts, some of our freedoms have now returned", May I ask who or what you believe owns our freedoms, and therefore is able to remove and restore them at will? Please allow me to clarify that no such entity exists. Freedoms are inalienable rights - the clue is in the word - and they do not belong to any individual or body. They certainly do not belong to the government. The government is, by definition, the servant of the people, and as such, has only one legitimate job - to protect our rights. The freedom to live our lives as we choose, including leaving our houses when we please, seeing and touching who we want, and retaining privacy from government snooping whilst we do these things, are rights we are born with, and the government hasn't the authority to grant them or take them away, unless we actively break the law, which is why each and every "lockdown" (a prison term) measure the government has imposed is wholly illegitimate and likely illegal, as the businessman Simon Dolan is in the process of proving in court. See here for more information: https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/lockdownlegalchallenge/
Let me be very clear that the government has no right to impose itself on our lives and livelihoods, issuing despotic demands to close down our businesses and track our movements. It is immaterial whether the government believes these measures are "good for our health" because it is not the government's job to protect our health. I have signed no contractual agreement with the government or their representatives in local councils stating that my health is their responsibility, and neither has any other individual in this country. My health, and the measures I take to either protect or risk it (providing they break no laws), are the business of one individual only - me.
The same applies to every other autonomous adult in the country. The government may issue "guidelines" of what it believes are healthy behaviours, but it has no legitimacy whatsoever to impose its beliefs via menace and threats as it is currently attempting to do. What next, expensive tax-payer funded correspondence campaigns threatening us with house-arrest, solitary confinement, debilitating illness and premature death if we do not eat our government-recommended five portions of vegetables a day? After all, poor diets are responsible for far more illness and death than cold viruses that may or may not exist, so why not?
The answer to that question, as I have repeatedly stated, is that the government has no business or legitimacy insinuating itself into forcibly controlling the national health.
To return to your letter; it informs people that they "must" conform with the NHS "track and trace" scheme. This is a grave misrepresentation and misnomer: no, they must not; participation in this scheme is entirely voluntary, as has been underlined by every responsible institution who attempts to "track and trace" their patrons. I have visited many venues since the "track and trace" programme began, and if asked for my details, I have informed them this scheme is voluntary and I do not wish to participate in it.
Most venues accept this unquestioningly, and the ones who do not, do not receive my custom but do receive a letter of complaint to their head office detailing to them what the law is, which neither they nor apparently you seem to know. "Track and trace" is not the law; the GDPR is the law, and as has been revealed this week and as many campaigners warned when it was launched, track and trace is not only not the law, it, in fact, contravenes the law: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-53466471
So by informing Kirklees residents they "must" participate in track and trace, you are not just misleading them, you are actively encouraging them to flout the law. You then attempt to incarcerate them via kangaroo courts, by informing them that, if they receive a call from a state operative with an anonymous tip-off, they must immediately enter house-arrest for weeks with no right to challenge or appeal. This is the stuff of dictatorships and banana republics, not first-world liberal democracies, and it is a scandal and a disgrace that you are using taxpayer's money to attempt to further menace people into complying with this sinister farce. Please allow me to make clear that if an NHS "track and tracer" contacts me, I will be taking their details and reporting them to the Data Commissioner for their complicity in criminal activity.
Your letter also instructs people that if they experience "symptoms" (of the common cold) they "must" call 111 to arrange a test. Please can you explain why you are advising people to take a test which its own creator, biochemist Kary B.Mullis, states should never be used for the diagnosis of viral infection (bearing in mind the virus it purports to test for has not even been proven to exist), and that has been widely reported in the press as being "contaminated"?
We have not been advised what these tests are contaminated with, so clearly, it is grotesquely irresponsible for you to be pressurising people into taking a test which is not only a thoroughly unreliable diagnostic tool, but that may also contain unknown contaminants and therefore could gravely undermine their health. Further, your use of the word "must" again requires disambiguation and clarity. What does "must" mean to you? What do you expect it to mean to the recipients of your letter? There is no legal requirement for people to be tested or to isolate if they do not wish to do so, so please explain what you are attempting to convey and why you are not making the actual legal position clear to recipients of your unsolicited, taxpayer-funded correspondence.
Your letter continues to declare that "we can't" shake hands or hug people. This is patently absurd. Of course, we can, we are fully capable of doing so, and what's more, fully legally and morally entitled to do so. Again, it very much appears to me, as a professionally trained and very experienced writer, that you are intentionally using language in an ambiguous way in an attempt to intimidate people into believing they have some sort of legal obligation to follow your demands when of course, they don't, and again, you are guilty of potentially causing very severe distress to vulnerable people by your ambiguity and insinuations.
In closing, I am expecting a very detailed response to my letter addressing every concern I raise, including the citation of studies that I have asked for. If you cannot provide the evidence I seek, including and especially irrefutable proof that the COVID-19 virus exists, then I will be investigating you further on suspicion of using public funds to disseminate malicious and threatening propaganda, which may constitute a charge of domestic terrorism. Petrifying the public with threats of severe illness and death if they do not comply with your authoritarian demands of extreme behaviour modification is a very serious matter indeed and may need to involve the police.
Please note the only further communication I wish to receive from Kirklees Council in regards to COVID-19 is in response to my letter, and if I receive any other communications of the nature of your initial correspondence, that include threats of illness/death and demands to control my behaviour, I will consider it harassment and respond accordingly.
I expect a comprehensive response to my letter by August 23rd, 2020 (one calendar month from the day you receive this letter), or I will take this matter further.
A copy of this letter is also being sent, via recorded delivery, to Barry Sheerman MP, with whom I have engaged in extensive correspondence regarding the coronavirus situation since March of this year. Mr. Sheerman and the three named recipients of this letter will also be receiving it in electronic form.
Thanks for reading! This site is 100% reader-funded, with no paywalls, adverts, or wealthy corporate backers, meaning your support is what powers this site to keep going. If you would like to make a contribution of any size, please do so through...
Your support is what enables this site to continue to exist, and is enormously appreciated. Thank you.