Is the Government Conspiring to Hide Inconvenient Court Cases?

It's been reported in the press that the Southport Stabber, the guy who stabbed the Army Major in front of his wife and the Labour MP who called for the slitting of throats of the far-right (in his mind, that'll be me then..) are all scheduled for the same day., the 20th of January..

This in itself is a pretty unbelievable coincidence, all three court cases starting on exactly the same date in different courts, but...

That date, the 20th. It has some significance next year. It's the date of the inauguration of President Trump. 

And possibly the date of the umpteenth attempt to assassinate him. Otherwise why would the left-leaning media be so interested in that date and cover it in such huge numbers. But I've digressed into tinfoil hat territory. Or have I?

Anyway, talk about a good day to bury bad news, that's got to be the most effective date to open a court case or series of court cases that are a tad inconvenient to your narrative of peace and tranquillity. 

Also, I expect on that day it'll be announced that the pair that assaulted the Police at Manchester Airport will face no further charges. It's been enough weeks now for the Police and the CPS to produce a report and decide on charges if any. I suspect in the interests of community cohesion, they will be let off without a trial. 

Saves thousands of Muslim activists descending on GMP headquarters and causing trouble. 

Strange that when thousands of Tommy Robinson supporters gather to support him, they get battoned. But hey, remember, there is no such thing as two-tier Policing! Two-Tier Kier said so!

Anyway, my bullshit radar will be switched on on the 20th and I'll be looking out for inconvenient facts to emerge, criminal charges to be dropped, YouTube influencers to be arrested, companies to announce record losses and the government to announce recession all on the same day. Oh and for the tears of the Marxist leftists around the West to flow. 

Lets hope Trump can hold it all together this time without the deep state interfering. 

We might need him to invade the UK and occupy it if Labour get any more radical. Regime change happened in the middle east, lets hope it happens in the UK before it becomes as bad and as corrupt as a middle east shithole. 

If I liked Popcorn, I'd get some in. Vodka and chocolate will have to do...

At What Age Does the NHS Stop Caring?

I'm getting yet more first-hand evidence that the NHS has implemented a set of "don't care" instructions for elderly people with health issues.

In the past two weeks, I have heard of the care or two elderly ladies, in their Eighties with chest infections. Their "treatment" if you can call it that, mimics that of my mother two years ago when she went into hospital. Basically management, not treatment, of their condition. It was only my official complaint to the hospital I think that changed things for the better for my mum. 

But back to these ladies. In one instance only antibiotics were administered. The antibiotics didn't improve the infection, but no other treatment was made, either stronger antibiotics or further investigation to confirm if it was a viral or bacterial infection. Sadly in this case the lady passed away. She was taken from her home to a hospice which infers the "treatment" was already scheduled to be end of life, with no expectation of recovery.

The second lady is still alive, but again is being administered antibiotics, with no apparent improvement over the past 5 days. Chillingly, as well as the antibiotics, the GP ordered end of life drugs. So the expectation from the outset is no recovery. The lady needed oxygen the other day, but it was refused by the GP, so the paramedics attending left after administering morphine to make the lady's discomfort easier, without life-extending oxygen. The option of a hospice wasn't available because no places were available. So she will die in her pretty awful care home. 

In both cases, the ladies in question are over 80. The first was disabled, but still had an active life and was content and healthy other than the chest infection. The second has dementia and is in a home that doesn't really care, so you could argue a lack of current quality of life.

Yet both appear to be condemned to death by the NHS, with no expectation of recovery, just management of the inevitable end that will come without effective treatment towards recovery.

At what age though does the NHS decide your time is up? At what age do they offer only simple treatment without recovery and instead effective treatment is withdrawn as an end goal and instead medicine is administered to make the passage to death easier? Is it age? Is it cost of treatment? Because I now qualify for free prescriptions, I must be costing the NHS a packet.

I say this very seriously, because I'm over 60 and I'm concerned that I might be eligible for this withdrawal of treatment and instead be managed to my passing for a bad dose of the 'flu.

It started happened during COVID and it's still happening. The NHS is withdrawing effective treatment from elderly patients and is instead administering the passage to death. 

These are the people that will be involved with the assisted suicide (or whatever the government call it)  path that was approved in the commons the other week. 

If there's a secret policy within the NHS for elderly patients, you can bet there will be a secret policy within the NHS for people they feel would "benefit" from assisted suicide. There will be mission creep, it will not be an option for people with terminal illnesses, it will be be administered to people that have a good chance of recovery. 

Finally, is this the new NHS cost-cutting? Are they attempting to save money by managing the coup-de-grace instead of treating a patient with the expectation of recovery. Because if that's the new normal, people need to be prosecuted. Dr Shipman went to prison for very similar activity.

As an afterthought, is it cost-cutting? Because there are plenty of cancer patients on very expensive drugs. Does anyone have information of those drugs and that option of treatment being withdrawn? 

Because then the only difference would appear the profit the drugs companies make out of the medicines administered to the patient. Antibiotics are cheap, cancer drugs are expensive. So is the difference the amount of profit the drugs companies can make out of the NHS? Who is administering that corrupt policy?

Industrialisation of the Countryside: The Uncaring Climate Death Cult Continues to Kill.

One of the less known "features" of this Labour government is the slavish allegiance to Net Zero, even more than the Tories, which is saying something. 

We now have no coal fired power plants. We are now reliant on Gas and Nuclear to do the heavy lifting and provide the bulk of electricity generation. 

Yes, wind does now produce decent amounts of power, but only when the wind blows. It's not a reliable form of energy generation. 

There's been a lot of pressure to keep the massive wind farms offshore, until now. Labour, who despise farmers are now relaxing the rules about onshore energy generation and there seems to be a bit of a rush on to get the countryside plastered with solar panels and the hills arrayed with windfarms.

I assume that's the reasoning behind the increase in death tax on farmers, so big corporations can buy the land and slap on renewable generation.

However, the impact is not only on Farmers, but also on areas of outstanding beauty that rely on tourism for income. After all you go to the Yorkshire Dales or Cumbria for the natural beauty of the landscape. You don't go to see some industrial landscape.

But the unemotional Starmer-bot doesn't care, I doubt he's got an ounce of empathy or emotion in his body. 

He can quite easily kill 4000 people (his own words, not mine) by ending winter fuel payments and sleep soundly at night, so why would he worry his unemotional sociopathic brain with the best looking parts of the country being blighted by solar and wind farms?

Putting people that rely on tourism for income out of a job is not his concern. His mission is to deliver unreliable energy in the form of renewables. His mission is to prop up the cult of Net Zero. He will continue with his mission regardless of the bodies that pile up in his wake. 

He will absolutely not stop. Parliament will not stop him because the majority are in lock-step and support net zero. They are all invested in the industries that support Net Zero or are part of the Death-Cult that is killing the West. They're not going to vote to lose money are they?

They are all in thrall to the death cult of global warming. They are quite happy to see you and your family cease to exist. How else do you explain the policies that could and do reduce population?

How do you feel about a government that actively affects policies that would result in your and your family's death? 

Never in our country's existence except maybe for Civil War period have we had a government that has such a callous disregard for the lives of the people is supposed to support or an ACTIVE policy of killing the population. 

If the government by it's own admission and the words of it's own leader enact policies that will actively kill thousands of our citizens, is it not incumbent on the population of this country to actively look at ways to resist this government and if necessary replace it? 

You have to wonder, at what point the population will awaken and understand what the government is doing.