Barnardo’s Sparks Row After Suggesting Parents And Grandparents Should Teach Youngsters About White Privilege

Britain’s biggest children’s charity was at the epicentre of a storm after it suggested parents and grandparents should teach youngsters about white privilege.

Barnardo’s was reported to the official charity regulator after Tory MPs argued that its political activism could be incompatible with its charitable status.

The attack came from a dozen MPs, including ex-Tory Cabinet Minister Esther McVey who spent four years in a Barnardo’s home and she told a newspaper outlet she was extremely disturbed by the charity’s guidance, saying it was a misguided and misjudged move away from what the charity is about and what it ought to be doing.

The intervention by the Tory MPs comes after Equalities Minister Kemi Badenoch said in October that teaching youngsters about white privilege and their inherited racial guilt could be breaking the law.

However, the charity hit back, with vice president Dr David Barnardo saying the organisation couldn’t be colour blind and that black, Asian and minority ethnic children encounter additional challenges.

The row centres on new guidance from Barnado’s entitled ‘White privilege – a guide for parents.’ And posted online a few weeks ago, it states that they believe educating children about white privilege is a part of teaching them about the world, and so is talking to them about how to be actively anti-racist.

It added that you might have heard the term white privilege before and that it was extremely common across the pond in the United States, and they said that you might also think that it doesn’t exist in the United Kingdom, but that racism is extremely real here too.

More than a dozen Tory MPs, including Sir John Hayes, chairman of the Commons Sense group at Westminster, wrote to Barnardo’s chief executive Javed Khan warning that they’d asked Charity Commission chairman Baroness Stowell to investigate whether this departure into political activism was compatible with Barnardo’s noble purpose and charitable status.

They added that they were extremely saddened to learn that Barnardo’s of all organisations should have permitted ideological dogma to replace the kindness and generosity which, for many years, Barnardo’s has been known for.

They said that the ludicrous idea that privilege or prejudice was the sole preserve of a particular ethnic group is as spiteful as it is silly.

We should stop all this rubbish and treat all children the same, no matter what colour or status, because every child is equal and what we should be doing is allowing these children to grow up and we should as a society be teaching these children to be good, always.

This white privilege garbage is the best model of discrimination you can get and our Government needs to step in and remove charitable status from organisations like this who are brainwashing children.

Barnardo’s, formerly Dr Barnardo’s Homes was established by Thomas John Barnardo, a Victorian philanthropist who was concerned to make provisions for the needs of the poor, in part by saving children from disadvantaged families.

His thinking was revolutionary at the time because he didn’t differentiate between the deserving and the undeserving poor, and instead had a policy that no disadvantaged child should ever be refused admission to one of his homes (the ever open door policy).

As a contemporary children’s charity, Barnardo’s works with some of the most vulnerable children and young people in the country, and in 2015-2016 helped 248,000 children, young people, parents and carers through 996 different services across the United Kingdom.

However, Barnardo’s had a huge role in child migration where it migrated very large numbers of children to Canada from the mid-late 1880s: 946 from 1866 to 1881 and 29,076 from 1882 to 1939.

It also migrated 502 children to Australia before 1921 and 1,840 from 1921 to 1945 and post-war Barnardo’s migrated children solely to Australia, 442 in total.

Children were migrated by Barnardo’s to Canada in large sailing groups.

From 1920 they were accompanied by a Mr and Mrs Hobday.

They stayed at Barnardo’s institutions in Ontario for an initial period before taking up occupation as agricultural workers or domestic servants on farms.

Children migrated by Barnardo’s to Australia were placed initially at Fairbridge Pinjarra school and from 1928 to 1929, Barnardo’s established its own farm school at Mowbray Park, near Picton, NSW. A home at Normanhurst, NSW, a home for girls at Burwood, NSW, and several smaller homes were subsequently established.

In or sometime before 1889, Alfred Owen, who ran Barnardo’s receiving home in Canada, was convicted of sexual interference with girls in is care – Barnardo’s in the United Kingdom became aware of this.

In 1955, a Picton housemaster was dismissed on the grounds of suspicion of indiscreet fondling of boys at the school. The extent of which Barnardo’s in the United Kingdom was made aware of this particular incident at the time is not clear.

On 30 May 1958 Barnardo’s Australia’s Tom Price raised concerns that 23 boys mostly aged between 18 and 21 were possible victims of serious sexual malpractices at Picton.

An ex-sports master, two poultry farmers, a Barnardo’s old boy, a herd testing officer and two former housemasters, including the one dismissed in 1955 were suspected as perpetrators over several years.

Concerns were also raised about boys at Normanhurst and boys in employment – Barnardo’s in the United Kingdom became aware of this.

Margaret Humphrey, CBE, AO was a social worker from Nottingham, England and worked for Nottingham County Council working around Radford, Nottingham and Hyson Green in child protection and adoption services.

In 1986 she received a letter from a woman in Australia who, believing she was an orphan, was looking to find her birth certificate so she could get married.

In 1987, Margaret Humphrey’s investigated and brought to public attention the British government programme of Home Children.

This involved forcibly migrating poor British children to Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the former Rhodesia and other parts of the Commonwealth of Nations, often without their parent’s knowledge.

Children were frequently told their parents had died, and parents were told their children had been placed for adoption elsewhere in the United Kingdom.

According to Margaret Humphreys, up to 150,000 children are thought to have been relocated under the scheme, some as young as three and about 7,000 of whom were sent to Australia.

Saving money was one of the motives behind this policy and children were allegedly deported because it was more affordable to care for them overseas.

It cost an estimated £5 per day to keep a child on welfare in a British institution, but only 10 per cent of that, ten shillings, in an Australian one.

Margaret Humphrey’s investigations led to the exposure of the child migration scheme in two major articles by Annabel Ferriman in the Observer newspaper in July 1987 and the establishment of the Child Migrants Trust, originally funded by Nottingham County Council, her employer, and later by the British and Australian governments, and constituted by the British and Australian governments, and constituted as a registered charity under English law.

The trust was later established as an incorporated body to comply with Australian regulations and opened offices in Melbourne and Perth.

The primary aims of the Trust were to help former British child migrants to reclaim their identity and to reunite them with their parents and families.

The key feature of the work of the Child Migrants Trust has been a sustained endeavour through the mass media to create public understanding of this previously obscure chapter in the social history of all the countries involved.

Margaret Humphreys took part in the British television documentary ‘The Lost Children of the Empire’ screened in 1989 and subsequently broadcast in Australia.

A popular history book with the identical title was published to coincide with the documentary.

Its description of child migration policy starts with Britain’s early involvement which began in the 17th century when children were shipped from London to increase the population of Virginia – the first British outpost in America.

Child migration continued over the next 350 years across three continents, including North America and Africa, concluding in Australia in 1970.

In 1998, a British Parliamentary Select Committee initiated an investigation into child migration schemes, and published a report in August that year, which criticised the policy in general, particularly certain Roman Catholic institutions in Western Australia and Queensland such as the Christian Brothers where child migrants were housed and allegedly abused.

The Western Australian Legislative Assembly passed a motion on 13 August 1998 apologising to former child migrants.

In 2007, both the Queensland and Western Australia government announced redress schemes for those who as children were abused while in state care. These schemes permitted former British child migrants to apply for financial compensation if they didn’t wish to or couldn’t pursue civil litigation claims against the government.

At the end of the day, the only privileged people are those that are wealthy. These politicians tell you that they can relate to you, but there’s no way that they can.

Our only true ethnicity is mankind because we’re all connected in some kind of way.

What we should be teaching our children is to have compassion towards each other, it doesn’t have to be colourised and it makes me sad that I share a world with people that have such limited minds and outlandish opinions.

And teaching children that our skin makes have privilege over other race sounds like something Hitler would say – Sieg Heil!

Coronavirus

The first photographs have been released of freezers storing the UK’s supply of coronavirus vaccines, ahead of the anticipated rollout.

Initial supplies of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine are being stored in specialist freezers at a secure place in England from which they will be distributed to the NHS.

Photos released by Public Health England reveal the freezers containing the doses, which must be stored at between minus 70C and minus 80C, although no pictures of the vaccine vials were included due to the methodology associated with opening the packing.

The Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) said that the vaccine doses were dispatched from Belgium by Pfizer and must go through a post-delivery quality assurance process on arrival to confirm the vaccine’s quality and integrity was maintained in transit.

The process, which could take 12-24 hours, is carried out by a specialist medical logistics company and relies upon information on the shipment temperature data being provided by Pfizer.

The DHSC said that over the following few days, each box must be opened and unloaded manually, and temperature data has to be downloaded from every box.

There are five packs of 975 doses per box, and only sites with the necessary licence can split the vaccine packs.

Once all inspections are done, the vaccine will be made available to order by authorised NHS sites – there are about 50 official sites in England so far.

The DHSC pointed out that delivering the Pfizer/BioTech vaccine is complicated, due to it needing to be stored at extremely cold temperatures and moved carefully, so it will at first be administered from hospital hubs.

Defrosting the vaccine takes a few hours and additional time is then needed to prepare the vaccine for administering and the DHSC said more than 1,000 local vaccination centres, operated by groups of GPs, will be functional soon with more being set up as more doses arrive.

The United Kingdom welcomed 800,000 doses of the vaccine in the first delivery, with more anticipated to arrive in the weeks ahead.

Stage one of the phased rollout of the vaccine will start when it’s been distributed and preparations are underway to begin administering the vaccine.

The DHSC said that once they get more vaccine and can split the large packs down, they will be able to do both bigger vaccination centres and smaller arrangments via local pharmacies.

And hopefully, this vaccine will be safe, well safe as can be, although there’s almost certainly bound to be some reactions, hopefully, they won’t be life-threatening and perhaps people should do their homework before they trust this vaccine.

And is it known if this vaccine is safe for pregnant or breastfeeding women or its effects on fertility?

It’s not to say that it’s not safe, its that it’s not been proven to be safe, so no one knows if it might cause problems with fertility or cause other significant problems down the line, but then no one knows if COVID will cause problems with fertility either.

So, it becomes a choice between two worries and it should be a personal choice on whether they have the jab or not, but numerous people are fearful they will be pressurised into having it, although at the moment there’s no policy of making it compulsory in the United Kingdom.

However, let’s hope there won’t be in the future, although there’s been a push for it from people like the boss of Qantas Airlines and talk of vaccination certificates. But there will be numerous people who won’t want to be taking something that’s not been tested properly because they’ll believe it’s too risky.

England’s Cladding Problem Creates 2 Million Mortgage Prisoners

Numerous flats are left virtually unsellable as the Government struggles with the aftermath of the Grenfell catastrophe and Alex Aristidou owns a flat he can’t sell.

And an inspection revealed the presence of flammable insulation on his building in Greenwich, south-east London, compounding a nightmare.

Alex Aristidou, 30, and his wife had been trying to sell their one-bedroom apartment, ahead of the arrival of their first child.

They soon found buyers and had an offer accepted on a new home in Surrey, but Alex Aristidou’s building was fitted with external cladding and without a fire safety certificate known as an EWS1 form and lenders declined to offer their would-be buyers a mortgage.

As they joined a long list of people in England waiting for a fire safety survey, the sale fell through and the couple and their newborn had to move in with his parents.

Along with nearly 2 million other people in England, Alex Aristidou and his young family are victims of a ballooning national situation, triggered by the killer 2017 Grenfell Tower fire in London compounded by Government blunders, according to MPs and campaigners.

The Grenfell tragedy claimed 72 lives and the continuing investigation confirmed that external cladding fitted to the building as part of a renovation earlier in the decade was the principle cause of the fire’s rapid spread.

Those findings put the spotlight on the safety of similar materials used on hundreds of thousands of other new or renovated buildings and shattered confidence in the country’s building codes.

Then there was a derogatory report by the parliamentary housing committee that said it was extremely astonishing and unacceptable to have more than 2,000 high-risk residential buildings with hazardous cladding many years after the disaster.

It also said it would be an abdication of responsibility by the Government if leaseholders were forced to pay to correct the problem.

Campaign group End Our Cladding Scandal estimates that the deterioration of trust in building safety has created 1.93 million mortgage prisoners in England such as the Aristidous family, who are unable to sell their homes because banks and other mortgage providers have declined to lend to would-be buyers.

It’s a perfect storm said John Baguley, of the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors. He said, that in the absence of being able to rely on building regulations and without an alternative process, buyers can’t obtain finance because lenders just don’t know what’s on the exterior of the building.

There’s just one word for why – greed. And it appears that there’s a complete lack of coordination and clarity over responsibilities and all the links of the chain saying it wasn’t their responsibility, but clear regulation would have sorted that.

Discrediting The Myths And Conspiracy Theories

History was made this week when the United Kingdom became the first country in the world to approve a coronavirus vaccine and the first doses of the Pfizer and BioNTech jab, made in Germany, are set to arrive in Britain and will be dispatched to 50 hospitals in the coming days.

As a consequence of the swiftness of development and anti-vaxxer conspiracy theories spreading online, there’s a tremendous amount of tension around the new vaccine.

Tom Phillips, from the leading fact-checker charity Full Fact, warned that since the beginning of the pandemic, they have seen wave after wave of misinformation which damages confidence in potential coronavirus vaccines and that bad information destroys lives.

He said that in previous pandemics and health situations around the globe, this type of misinformation has cost lives.

So, at Metro.co.uk they’ve done some research to discover the truth behind the main rumours on the internet and here are some myths that have been discredited:

That the vaccine alters your DNA – the main conspiracy theory about the vaccine presently is that it will change your DNA and a Facebook post asserts that the new vaccine for COVID 19 will alter your DNA and that it will encase itself into your structure and that you’ll become a genetically modified human being.

But this is not correct. However, it doesn’t clarify accurately how this type of jab works.

The Pfizer vaccine, alongside the preponderance of the COVID 19 vaccine candidates, is an RNA injection.

Conventional vaccines are created using weakened forms of the virus, but RNA based jabs instead use the virus’s genetic code.

When a person is injected, a molecule is introduced into the body which tells cells to produce a coronavirus spike protein and this protein, or antigen is then recognised by the immune system which produces antibodies and T cells in preparation against the infection.

It means if a person gets COVID 19, these antibodies are then triggered to combat the virus. It doesn’t alter the body’s DNA or swathe itself into your system.

RNA vaccines are normally viewed positively as they don’t involve using part of the virus itself and are affordable.

The Oxford University and AstraZeneca vaccine is not an RNA vaccine but instead uses an innocuous cold virus from chimpanzees modified in a lab to look like coronavirus when it enters the body.

Another claim suggests that the Pfizer jab is too cold to be a real vaccine and that it’s alive.

It is correct that the vaccine has to be stored at -70 degrees Celsius, but that’s just to prevent it from spoiling – no vaccine is alive and the coronavirus vaccine isn’t the only vaccine which needs to be stored at extremely low temperatures, the Ebola vaccine had to be transported at -60 degrees Celsius.

However, it’s difficult to sort out which whoppers are spewing propaganda, but should people be having a non-liable experimental mRNA vaccine with unknown long term side effects? Assuming that people will be heading out to get the vaccine.

Sadly nothing will ever persuade the tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorists that they might be wrong, on the other hand, they could be right, or are we all just sheep?

Although I don’t believe they sell tin foil hats anymore and sheep are good at making yarn from, although allowing the sheep not to be sheared could encumber them quite a bit.

And Pfizer isn’t squeaky clean, all you have to do is look at their track record.

Pfizer and its subsidiary Pharmacia & Upjohn Company paid $2.3 billion to settle criminal and civil liabilities for illegal promotion of their pharmaceutical products.

The amount included payment of more than $102 million in civil settlement to six whistleblowers of the company’s dishonest practices in 2009.

Bextra, an anti-inflammatory drug was removed from the market in 2005 due to safety concerns, which was marketed by the company for various off label uses.

The company also illegally promoted several other drugs, including antipsychotic drugs Geodin, antibiotic Zyvox, and antiepileptic drug Lyrica.

Healthcare providers received payments for prescribing these drugs to patients for off label use and fraudulent claims were submitted to government healthcare programmes, circumventing the insurance programmes.

The company had to pay approximately $1 billion to Medicare, Medicaid, and other government insurance programmes under the settlement.

Trans Teens Under 16 Can Get Puberty Blockers

A High Court has ruled that Trans children under the age of 16 can only consent to puberty blockers if they understand the nature of the treatment.

The ruling was given during a landmark case, in which Keira Bell, 23, brought legal action against Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust, which runs the UK’s only gender identity development service for children.

Keira Bell, who has since transitioned, started taking puberty blockers at 16 and went on to take cross-sex hormones and underwent a double mastectomy.

A second legal challenge was also put forward by Mrs A, the mother of a trans autistic girl, 16, on the waiting list for treatment.

Both Ms Bell and Mrs A asked the High Court to rule it unlawful for trans children to be prescribed hormone blockers without a ruling from the court that such treatment was in their best interests.

In reply, the Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust said the claimants were attempting to impose a blanket exclusion on children under the age of 18 being able to consent to medical treatment, which they described as a radical proposition.

In a judgement, Dame Victoria Sharp, sitting with Lord Justice Lewis and Mrs Justice Lieven, said that children under 16 needed to comprehend the immediate and long term effects of puberty blockers before they receive them.

She described a child’s capacity to give valid consent as being able to understand, retain and weigh many factors involved in the treatment.

She noted these would include understanding the immediate consequences of the treatment in physical and psychological terms, and the reality that the vast preponderance of patients taking puberty-blocking drugs proceed to take cross-sex hormones, meaning they were a pathway to much greater medical intervention.

Dame Victoria also said children would need to comprehend the impact of the treatment pathway on future and life long relationships, and be mindful of the unknown physical consequences of taking puberty-blocking drugs and the fact that the evidence-based for this treatment is as yet highly uncertain.

She added that the court was only ruling on the informed consent of a child to take puberty blockers and not the benefits or disbenefits of the treatment and the judges noted that it was highly doubtful that a child of 13 or under would be competent to give consent and doubtful that a child or 14 or 15 could comprehend the long term risks and consequences of puberty blockers.

However, puberty blockers can be reversed by stopping the medication if the child later decides not to transition to another gender and puberty blockers can give transgender children a smoother transition into their chosen gender identity as an adult.

Of course, children and people make poor decisions all the time. People have breast implants and then regret them. People get married and then regret it. People have children and then regret them but you can’t stop someone doing something they’ve wanted for several years just because they might regret it, but what is important is that all trans teenagers must have access to a range of therapies to help them make the best decisions for themselves.

Puberty blockers are designed to prevent early transitions because they prevent puberty occurring until they’re old enough to decide on their own if they choose to transition as adults, which then makes the transition easier.

If they’re one of the very few who choose not to then transition they can simply quit taking the drug and allow puberty to occur.

This isn’t giving children the choice to transition early, it’s quite literally allowing them to become adults first before they make a life decision.

Shops To Remain Open Up To 24 Hours A Day In The Run-Up To Christmas

Stores could remain open 24 hours a day in the run-up to Christmas in a Government bid to boost England’s ailing high street.

Under the new plans, councils will be able to waive rules prohibiting retailer’s opening hours to help shop owners recoup sales lost during the coronavirus lockdown.

Announcing the move on Sunday, Communities Secretary Robert Jenrick said he wanted to ensure a more enjoyable and safe shopping experience for all.

Existing regulations state that any retailers wanting to extend their hours beyond 9 am to 7 pm from Monday to Saturday must apply for special permission, but Robert Jenrick said he wanted to suspend such processes, which can take weeks to help business owners after months of COVID 19 constraints.

The minister said stores should be able to determine their opening hours through December and January and even have the option of operating 24/7 services.

Robert Jenrick said that with these modifications local stores could open longer, ensuring more enjoyable and safer shopping with less stress on public transportation.

He continued that how long would be a matter of choice for the shopkeepers and at the discretion of the council, but that he would recommend they offer those hard-pressed entrepreneurs and businesses the greatest possible flexibility this festive season.

He said that as Local Government Secretary he was relaxing planning constraints and issuing an unambiguous request to councils to let businesses to welcome them into their glowing stores late into the evening and beyond if they desire.

He continued that those shops and supermarkets would be able to restock their racks whenever they wish, with flexible deliveries to keep the streets free for the rest of us when we’re out and about and he suggested that such modifications would enable to free our small business people to get on with earning a living.

The announcement came as England prepares to enter a fresh round of tiered constraints as the national lockdown concludes.

Under the new system, non-essential shops, gyms, beauticians and other personal care services will be permitted to open across the country, making a relaxation on the pre lockdown tiers, but several of Robert Jenrick’s Conservative colleagues believe the new measures too draconic, or unfair on specific areas, and the Government has scrambled to suppress a backbench uprising over their enforcement.

However, too many shop employees are already working long hours for very little income and usually don’t get enhancements for unsocial hours, so there needs to be some fairness and reasonableness for everyone in our society.

England used to be known for its sense of fair play, but now we’re turning into ‘I’m alright jack’ in a mini American society.

So, this now means that we can go shopping without a substantial meal and you might not have to go home until after 11 pm and COVID won’t attack us – extremely interesting because loads of stores will be heaving, with no social distancing or test and trace, so is this really about the virus?

I just hope that staff are paid appropriately for these unsociable hours, but then it appears that retail staff aren’t that important, but I guess if staff are willing to work, it might save them from losing their jobs and their businesses closing down.

This is similar to the ‘eat out to help out’ just so they can try and save the economy at Christmas, while the rich get richer and the working classes die, and it seems that London gets to open up like there’s no pandemic, while the rest of us are on tier 3.

Pensioner Jailed For Playing Classic FM Too Loudly Dies In Prison

An 83-year-old man who was imprisoned for constantly blaring Classic FM in his home has died while serving his sentence.

Ian Trainer was jailed for 24 weeks in February this year after he was found to have breached a condition of a restraining order, but he was jailed again after continuing to breach the order when he was released.

The pensioner was given a restraining order in 2019 which banned him from playing any audio at a volume exceeding normal talking level between the hours of 9 am and 10 pm.

The Ministry of Justice (MOJ) confirmed Ian Trainer had sadly passed away – a Prison Service spokesman said that the HMP Liverpool prisoner Ian Trainer died in hospital on the 24 November and that the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman had been informed.

The spokesman didn’t confirm the cause of Ian Trainer’s demise and said that it was a matter for the coroner.

At a hearing in February, Liverpool Magistrates Court heard how Ian Trainer’s neighbour, Thomas Michael Thompson, had experienced noise pollution from his neighbour’s property for many years.

On December 17, 2019, a police officer attended Ian Trainer’s property in Liverpool, after being called out for a noise complaint by Thomas Michael Thompson.

The court heard Ian Trainer told the officer that he enjoyed playing music at a level he enjoyed as he was being arrested for breaching the straining order.

The statement, read in court, also reported that Ian Trainer had said he had a nasty cold and could only hear in one ear. He also informed the officer that being on steroids for a medical illness meant he couldn’t wear headphones as they irritated his ears.

Ian Trainer was sentenced to 24 weeks in jail for breaching the order and the judge told the court that he’d played music at a level that induced distress.

Ian Trainer was also ordered to pay court costs of £600 and a further victim surcharge to Mr Thompson of £122.

The pensioner appeared again at Liverpool Crown Court in June via video link from HMP Altcourse and was remanded in custody.

He faced allegations of breaching the court order again by playing music too loudly.

Ian Trainer pleaded not guilty to the charge, arguing the accusations were vicious lies. He also said he had underlying health issues.

It’s not evident whether Ian Trainer, who had been before the courts numerous times in recent years relating to noise complaints, had been convicted of the new allegations at the time of his demise.

However, at 82, his hearing might not have been so good, either way, what sort of society puts an old man in jail for doing what he enjoys in his final years and doing no real harm to anyone else and then the system whines that it’s not got enough space in their prisons for murderers et cetera, that’s because it’s too full of old people who have been a tad mischievous.

And I bet there wouldn’t have been any objections if the neighbour had a liking of classical music, and this is the same pathetic society that arrested an old lady in her 70s for protesting outside the houses of parliament and handcuffed her and carried her spread eagle to put her face down in the back of the police van, which was horrendous.

Would it have not been more cost-effective to fit a bit of soundproofing in this mans home? He was old and perhaps a little bit deaf and this hardly warranted a prison sentence.

So, it was deemed appropriate to put this poor man in prison, yet we have terrorists wandering our streets, absolutely inexplicable.

The illegal Sterilisation Of Women In Prisons

A film that was shot over seven years, called the ‘Belly of the Beast’ uncovered a disturbing practice of tubal ligations in California.

In 2001 Kelli Dillon was a prisoner in Central California Women’s Facility when she started experiencing pain in her stomach.

A doctor, suspecting ovarian cysts, ordered a biopsy, but after the procedure, Kelli Dillon began having heart palpitations and night sweats, and her periods ceased.

The doctor had not only removed the cysts, but he’d also taken out her ovaries and she had been sterilised at the age of 24.

‘Belly of the Beast’, a documentary directed by Erika Cohn, chronicles Kelli Dillon’s brutal experience, which was shot over seven years, and which also follows Cynthia Chandler, the co-founder of Justice Now, an advocacy group for women prisoners, as the pair sought legal and financial redress.

Kelli Dillon’s discovery that a dozen other women in the prison had also been sterilised was the catalyst for further investigation by the group and later by Corey Johnson of the Centre for Investigative Reporting, a think tank.

Corey Johnson discovered evidence of 148 instances between 2006 and 2010 in which doctors in two prisons had performed unauthorised tubal ligations, the permanent blockage or removal of the fallopian tubes on prisoners.

Some women said that they were pressed to get the procedure, which was frequently added onto surgeries such as caesarean sections, others weren’t properly informed about what would take place.

Dr James Heinrich, who performed many of the procedures, told Corey Johnson he had been saving the state from having to pay welfare for unwanted children.

After the story broke, California’s lawmakers held hearings, at which both Ms Dillon and Ms Chandler testified and prohibited sterilisation as a form of birth control in prisons in 2014.

Data from a state audit, and prison records compiled by journalists working with Ms Cohn, revealed that between 1997 and 2013 nearly 1,400 women were sterilised while imprisoned in Californian correctional institutions.

‘Belly of the Beast’ was a difficult film to make and would-be financial backers initially found the premise preposterous and Ms Cohn had little access to her sources in prison and it was difficult to get access to records because some of the pivotal events had already occurred behind bars.

They decided to carefully reconstruct each memory, each moment, each constricted space, she said as she incorporated those into a compelling narrative with an assortment of interviews and archival footage.

This is all extremely horrific, totally unacceptable and illegal and nothing more than a concentration camp for women.

These women will suffer long term consequences for who knows how long throughout their lives.

Where were these women’s human rights? And it’s eugenics all over again.

Ms Cohn claims that the procedures were not an anomaly and that in the 20th-century eugenics programmes were standard in America and of the more than 30 states that enforced them, California was the biggest, with some 20,000 people forcibly sterilised between 1909 and 1979.

The programmes targeted people for reasons such as being feeble-minded, immoral or an addict, and frequently singled out ethnic minorities.

Virginia, which was second only to California in the number of people it sterilised, also continued with the policy until 1979, and more than a fifth of its approximately 8,000 victims was African American.

We’re Prepared!

An army of recruits is being taught on how to administer the life-changing COVID jab as Britain readies for the looming launch of the most major vaccine campaign in history.

The momentous programme could start within days as regulators at the Medicines and Healthcare Regulatory Agency are expected to approve the vaccine forged by Pfizer and BioNTech this week.

In trials, it was found to be 95 per cent effective at preventing COVID infections.

Yesterday Nadhim Zahawi was named as the Government’s vaccine tsar, temporarily standing down from his position as a junior Business Minister to mastermind the rollout.

The MP revealed he’s been at the forefront of research, having volunteered to trial a vaccine for US firm Novavax.

He’s already received one jab and will have his second this week, but doesn’t know if he’s getting the vaccine or a placebo.

If the Pfizer vaccine is approved, deliveries could begin within hours – the Government has ordered 40 million doses, enough for 20 million people.

Ten million of these are scheduled for delivery next month, ready for injections to start as early as December 7.

First in line are likely to be NHS workers, especially as the vaccine needs to be stored at 70C and only hospitals have the necessary freezer facilities – social care workers and care home residents will be next in line.

Other vaccines in the pipeline, including one from Oxford University and AstraZeneca, from which the Government has ordered 100 million doses, have less demanding prerequisites.

GPs are set to offer vaccinations seven days a week, while mass vaccination centres will be set up and St John’s Ambulance is training 30,000 volunteers to assist.

Perhaps they should give it to all the politicians first because then at least if the vaccine isn’t safe, the country will be safe and there will be a ton of people out there that will refuse to take it because there’s no data for side effects.

This is a vaccine with a 99 per cent survival rate, but there will be people out there lining up to have the jab without asking any questions and this could end up in tears, and it appears that the pharmaceutical companies are confident, but will they be so confident and liable if things go wrong?

And there will be millions of people who will rush out to get this untested precarious vaccine, to have unknown toxins infiltrated into their bodies, not knowing if it will make them sick or not, and are we being used as guinea pigs?

And can we trust something that’s been made from desperation and hastiness?

This isn’t just about money, it more about power because if it were really about money, our Government wouldn’t have destroyed the global economy, it’s about agenda.

This is why Bill Gates is constantly talking about depopulation, and why was the World Economic Forum talking about the great reset? But whether you’re a conspiracy theorist or not! Will you get the jab or will you take your chances of contracting the virus?

Royal Shake-Up

Kate Middleton has drafted plans for an extreme shake-up of the monarchy when she becomes Queen Consort, as royal sources suggest she will transform ancient royal practices.

According to royal sources, Kate Middleton plans to revamp the monarchy when she becomes Queen Consort.

The Duchess of Cambridge wants to use her position when William ascends to the throne to become more personable to the British people and according to Us Weekly, Kate wants to be talking to the people more both in person and with broadcasts and could ditch some of the royal rules.

Talking on Royally Us, Us Weekly reporter Christine Garibaldi said that they were getting information on how Kate intends to change some of the royal rules when she becomes Queen Consort.

Co-host Molly Mulshine explained that evidently, she wants to be talking to the people more both in-person engagements and occasions as well as with broadcasts.

Christine Garibaldi responded that she didn’t believe that was unexpected and that in the last few months she’s become more relaxed doing that and that she’s done a ton of zoom calls and a ton of virtual chats, and more so than ever she’s been speaking one to one with the people.

She added that she thought it was amazing and that having a personable affinity is what a lot of people want.

Molly Mulshine said that she felt like she never really spoke that much and that now we’re hearing her all the time and that was wonderful.

Christine Garibaldi noted that it seems the Royal Family are extremely pleased with her and they’ve had reports that the Queen adores Kate and the Queen loves that she’s stepped up in the last few years and taken on a ton of other stuff and that she’s the head of eighteen different charities.

She’s putting in the work and she does a lot behind the scenes that we don’t see and Kate has encountered a surprising wave in popularity as a senior royal and the wife of future King, Prince William this year.

And a royal source told Us Weekly that Kate may alter some of the outdated royal rules when she becomes Queen Consort and the source continued that it used to be that you’d never see Kate at an event without William, but now she’s attending numerous official functions on her own – a sign that she’s ready to be queen.

But does Britain need a Royal Family? Perhaps we do, perhaps we don’t, but it’s fairly evident that the Royal Family is the envy of the world, even if it is a fairy tale that’s outstayed its welcome.

And even if the Royal Family was to go, then it must be replaced with something much better, although I’m not sure what we’d replace it with, probably a political dominion!

Talk about jumping out of the frying pan into the fire because they’re all mostly foreign bloodsuckers and perhaps we should vote on whether we want to keep these freeloaders.

They might have altered their surname to fit in but they’re from foreign lineage and the British monarchy should be as it says, British and not marauding scavengers, although I’m sure that our Government, particularly Boris Johnson would love the monarchy to be gone because without a monarchy, all we have is a dictatorship regime.

And of course, there will be no more Royals sponging off the taxpayer, no Royal homes to fund, but that wouldn’t work either because our Government would simply tax as more.

Anyhow, it will be a long time before the Duke of Cambridge advances to the throne. Assuming that Charles becomes King and lives that long, because William will be about pension age when he becomes King.

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started