Should There Be A UK-Wide Referendum On Future Lockdowns? Yes! Please! Now! 


Here are a couple of commentators expressing MY opinion over on the YouTube platform…

(1)   No need. The referendum is just done by acting like a free human being with basic human rights. You don’t need a referendum to be a human being, you don’t need permission from the government to be a human being. You have your rights, just exercise them.

(2)  No we don’t need a referendum, we simply need to stop being so compliant.

Or maybe you have a different view?  Let’s hear it…

Note:  the recording stops short before the end, due to the typically longer-than-the-answer question from the presenter.  So feel free to take a guess as to what Mike Dolan went on to say… we’re entitled to some fun!  😀  

UK Building Body Storage Facilities in Case of “Excess Deaths Situation”…Why?

London Councils Building Body Storage Facilities in Case of an “Excess Deaths Situation”…

The following is taken from UK Government website

Temporary Body Storage Service…

The Authority seeks to procure a framework agreement for temporary body storage in the event of an excess deaths situation for the 32 London boroughs and the City of London, led by Westminster City Council. The framework agreement will appoint a single provider and will be for a period of 4 years. This will be a contingency contract, only called upon in the event that an excess deaths situation arises in the future and existing local body storage capacity needs to be augmented.

The over-arching aim of this tender is to provide a single framework supplier that will be able to provide temporary body storage facilities to house deceased in the event of an excess deaths situation. The deceased will be stored with dignity and respect, at locations to be determined based on local London needs at the time and will require some design elements to accommodate local site conditions and constraints, while being capable of rapid deployment, construction and commissioning to an agreed standard. This framework will be procured by the Authority as the pan-London lead, but all London local authorities may call-off against the framework.

This will be a contingency cover framework and as such there is no minimum guarantee of any level of spend or call-off under the framework agreement.  Source


It’s not so long since we were informed of a similar advertisement on the Police Scotland website – so what’s the story?  What are they not telling us?  I am under the impression that restrictions are set to ease – indeed, Boris led us to believe that all restrictions were to be removed on Mon 21 June, “Freedom Day”, and although that date has been pushed back to 19 July, I assumed deaths were under control, so to speak.  So, are they not telling us the truth? Are more people  dying from Covid than we’re being told – or, er, is there something else afoot?  What do the powers-that-be know that they’re not telling the hoi polloi?   Share your best guess(es)…

US Bishops Drafting Teaching Document on Eucharist – But What’s the Point?

STOP PRESS:    Catholic News Agency reports that today, 18 June, The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops voted to move forward on several action items, including a draft of a teaching document on the Eucharist. below, details of their debate… 

From National Catholic Register

Archbishop Joseph Naumann of Kansas City, Kansas, head of the U.S. bishops’ pro-life committee, said “this is a particularly important moment that we speak” on the Eucharist. He also called Catholic politicians to “integrity” in rebuking “those in public life who then flaunt their Catholicity, love to describe themselves as devout Catholics” and back abortion.

WASHINGTON — The second day of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ (USCCB) spring general assembly featured a lengthy and passionate debate over the proposal to draft a document on the Church’s teaching on the Eucharist.

The document, which would include a discussion of worthiness to receive Communion, remains a hot-button issue given the many Catholic public officials who go against Church teachings on the issue of abortion and yet continue to receive Communion.

Those involved in the document’s drafting insisted that it was not aimed at particular individuals and was not meant to institute a national policy, but U.S. President Joe Biden’s name came up several times in the discussion due to his administration’s aggressive pro-abortion stance despite his avowed Catholicism.

What appeared to be a vocal minority of the bishops pushed for delay on drafting any document and asked for more dialogue on the matter given its contentious nature. Most of the bishops seemed to be supportive of drafting the document and spoke to the need to do so in light of widespread ignorance among the faithful regarding the Church’s teaching on the Eucharist, as well as the scandal to the faithful caused by Biden. The results of the vote on the draft proposal will be released Friday.

The debate came following an effort by some bishops Wednesday to delay the motion to draft the document until every bishop had a chance to speak on the matter, a move others called a “filibuster” because it would make a vote on drafting the document impossible. The issue has been hotly contested in the months leading up to the assembly, with Cardinal Luis Ladaria, the prefect of the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, cautioning USCCB president Archbishop José Gomez of Los Angeles in May about crafting “a national policy” on the matter, “given its possibly contentious nature,” and suggesting the debate “would best be framed within the broad context of worthiness for the reception of Holy Communion on the part of all the faithful, rather than only one category of Catholics, reflecting their obligation to conform their lives to the entire Gospel of Jesus Christ as they prepare to receive the sacrament.”

The Document’s Scope

Bishop Kevin Rhoades of Fort Wayne-South Bend, Indiana, the chairman of the U.S. bishops’ Committee on Doctrine that wrote the outline of the document and would be tasked with drafting it, explained in prepared remarks over the meeting’s Zoom format Thursday that the proposal has been “the subject of misunderstanding and even mischaracterization” among the bishops.

Indirectly rebutting the claims that it’s directed specifically toward Biden’s strong promotion of legal abortion, he said the document originated out of concern among the bishops over the “proven decline in belief in the Real Presence among our Catholic faithful,” citing a 2019 Pew poll that just a third of U.S. Catholics believe in the Real Presence.

The document would discuss the Eucharist as “a mystery to be believed” a “mystery to be celebrated” and a “mystery to be lived.” That third portion of the document would touch on the worthiness to receive Communion as, Bishop Rhoades said, “one cannot discuss the centrality of the Eucharist as the source and summit of the Christian life without addressing those actions that inflict damage to the honor due the sacrament or cause scandal to the faithful.”

He added that the statement would not set forth national norms but rather lay out existing teaching on the matter and “was never considered by the committee on doctrine to be a statement about any one individual or about any one category of sinful behavior, rather it would bring heightened awareness among the faithful of the need to be to conformed to the Eucharist and to bear public witness to the faith through a call to conversion.” The fact that establishing national norms is significant to the debate regarding whether and how to proceed, as Cardinal Ladaria’s cautionary letter to Archbishop Gomez appeared to be predicated on the belief that this was what the U.S. bishops were intending.

Bishop Rhoades received pushback almost immediately. Cardinal Blase Cupich of Chicago, who signed a letter to Archbishop Gomez asking that the debate over worthiness to receive Communion be delayed until the bishops’ next in-person meeting, voiced concerns that the document would be interpreted as aimed at certain politicians like Biden, and that he didn’t know “how we get around that if we pass on this document.”

“Reproductive rights are a constitutional right. And, in fact, every woman should have that right.”

Cardinal Cupich called for a removal of the section on worthiness to receive Communion and said those who pushed for the draft wanted the bishops “to do something about politicians who hold positions that are contrary to our teaching and let’s not fall into that trap.”

Intended for All Catholics

Bishop Rhoades responded that document was intended for all Catholics, not just politicians, and would be a teaching document focused on “the reasons behind the Church’s discipline.” He said that the document wasn’t “targeting particular individuals” or limited to the issue of abortion. He called for acceptance of “the Church’s discipline that those who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion,” but added that individual bishops decide how to apply that so the bishops wouldn’t be doing that in the document.

Archbishop Alexander Sample of Portland, Oregon, made the case that “there’s nothing in Cardinal Ladaria’s letter that is inconsistent with the work that Bishop Rhoades and his committee is proposing,” since the proposal was not about a national policy, but a teaching document. He also referenced Cardinal Ladaria’s call for dialogue with Catholic politicians on the issue saying “that happens a lot. I know I speak with many bishops and it’s been reported in the media how many bishops have had dialogues with our Catholic political leaders on this.”

While Cardinal Cupich has now twice raised concerns in this week’s meeting that there must be time for dialogue with these politicians, he told CNA in 2019 that he had ongoing “conversations” with Catholic leaders in the Illinois state Legislature who championed an abortion coverage mandate. He said he believed it would be “counterproductive” to deny Holy Communion in his archdiocese to the legislators who championed the law.

Bishop Joseph Tyson of Yakima, Washington, asked Bishop Rhoades to what extent the document was “about making a point on abortion to the exclusion of other important issues?” He replied that “you can look at a variety of issues” when considering worthiness to receive Communion and raised the example of the scandal of a white supremacist leader or individual involved in human trafficking attempting to receive Communion. Bishop Rhoades added that at this point he doesn’t “know in the document if we’re going to get into specific issues” but was open to hear from various bishops on the matter.

Additional Objections

Bishop Robert McElroy of San Diego backed the call to remove the portion of the document addressing Eucharistic consistency and argued that the proposal is part of the “groundwork for a fundamental shift in how bishops should present our faith in public discussion,” which “would make the denial of the Eucharist a significant element of our teaching office in contemporary society.”

He worried that the bishops were headed down that road and the consequences of that were that the Eucharist would be “weaponized” in partisan battles and being barred from reception of Communion would only apply to politicians opposed to the Church’s stance on abortion and euthanasia, which the Church teaches are intrinsically evil, rather than issues like racism and environment. Bishop Rhoades countered with a reminder that the Committee on Doctrine was not planning on limiting it to those two issues.

Cardinal Wilton Gregory of Washington, D.C., who oversees the archdiocese where President Biden resides, notably sided with the bishops urging more dialogue and raising concerns about the divisiveness of the subject.

He said, “the choice before us at this moment is either we pursue a path of strengthening unity among ourselves, or settle for creating a document that may not bring unity, but may well further damage it.”

A couple of bishops raised other objections to the document, worrying that it would not be an effective teaching document.

Archbishop Michael Jackels of Dubuque, Iowa said he opposed drafting the document because he believed there are “adequate instructions already published” and that “a diocesan pastor or a parish pastor is competent and motivated to teach” about the Eucharist and worthiness to receive it.

“I don’t think that the issues that we’re bringing up are going to be addressed by a document from the conference or by this initiative on Eucharistic revitalization,” he said.

Bishop Shawn McKnight of Jefferson City, Missouri, pointed out the “division in the conference in terms of how we’re perceiving the context and the letter from Cardinal Ladaria and, therefore, the content of what is being proposed.”

He said that while he would back a “teaching document” on the Eucharist, the draft proposed sounded like it would go beyond that and “there isn’t a strong canonical foundation for us to be involved in the specific question of Eucharistic consistency, the discipline of deciding who gets Communion and who doesn’t.”

Scandal to the Faithful

In support of proceeding with the drafting of the document, many bishops raised concerns about the scandal of the lack of clarity on Eucharistic teaching at the present moment.

Bishop Donald DeGrood of Sioux Falls, South Dakota, said some in his diocese are “scandalized that the U.S. bishops haven’t come out yet with something clear. It’s already in our teachings, I see it as a reaffirming the beautiful faith that God has entrusted to us.”

Archbishop Joseph Naumann of Kansas City, Kansas, head of the U.S. bishops’ pro-life committee, said “this is a particularly important moment that we speak” on the Eucharist. He also called Catholic politicians to “integrity” in rebuking “those in public life who then flaunt their Catholicity, love to describe themselves as devout Catholics” and back abortion.

He referenced Biden and his backing of taxpayer-funded abortion calling him “a Catholic president that’s doing the most aggressive thing we’ve ever seen in terms of this attack on life when its most innocent.” Archbishop Naumann recalled the bishops naming abortion as a “pre-eminent” issue in 2019 because “it attacks life at its most vulnerable” and said that Pope Francis had agreed with that assessment during an ad limina visit. He said that “when we receive the Eucharist” we are affirming our beliefs in the teachings of the faith.

San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone, who wrote earlier this year about why pro-abortion politicians should not receive Communion, also called discussion of the issue “very timely” and said the document would prove a “valuable resource” and serve as a guide for bishops on the Communion issue. He added that the bishops must make a statement on this “core teaching” of the Eucharist because “how can we expect to be taken seriously on any other topic?”

Bishop Donald Hying of Madison, Wisconsin, also viewed the moment as a crucial time for some clarity from the bishops on reception of the Eucharist.

He said he speaks “almost daily” with laity who “are confused by the fact that we have a president who professes devout Catholicism and yet advances the most radical pro-abortion agenda in our history. That leaves them concerned and confused and I think they’re looking for some direction, some teaching from us.”

Bishop Thomas Daly of Spokane, Washington, noted “an aggressiveness in a number of elected officials” on the issue and wondered if the call for waiting and dialogue from some of his fellow bishops “is meant not truly to listen but to delay.” He called this “a time for us to clarify, to speak the truth in humility and charity.”

The bishops need a simple majority for drafting of the document to proceed and to be presented to the general assembly who are expected to meet in person in their November meeting.   Source 


It beggars belief that any bishop would NOT want to ensure that the Church’s teaching – i.e. Christ’s teaching – on worthy reception of Holy Communion is upheld and enforced as much as possible.  It means that those bishops who prefer not to challenge those people, including politicians at the highest level, who receive Communion while not being IN communion with Christ, must surely think that Our Lord got it wrong when He refused to “dialogue” with those of his first followers who abandoned him over this doctrine, saying it was too hard (John 6:61). Far from dialoguing with them, Our Lord turned to the twelve and asked if they, too, would go away. (John 6:68). 

At least the vote went the right way – it’s self-evident, though, that there are bishops who have no intention of enforcing any decisions with which they disagree – we know that because they’re already flouting Canon Law # 915, which prohibits pro-abortionists from approaching for Holy Communion.  So, the  question here is, really, what’s the point?  Is this new document from the American Bishops likely to keep “devout Catholic” Joe Biden from making a mockery of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist? 

Scottish Government Goal: “Much Greater Normality” – Not Freedom…


A couple of days ago, the BBC  Reporter, Glen Campbell, remarked – in a throwaway comment at the end of his report on the Scottish evening news programme – that we would not be returning to life as we knew it prior to “the virus”.  There would be, he said “a new normal” and apparently this is to be spelt out to us in writing (he mentioned that the Government is working on “a paper”) so the question is – will the Scottish population continue to accept this new form of governance? The majority of Scots have been very meek, totally obedient, so far. Will  this compliance continue? 

Shouldn’t we demand a General Election to vote for such a massive change in the way we live our lives?  People in dictatorships such as North Korea don’t know anything about the outside world – they do not even know the concept of freedom, brainwashed as they are from their earliest days to think that they live in the best country in the world.  We do know about freedom and we want our future generations to know about it.  Surely, then, we are not going to hand our freedom over on a permanent basis?

Lockdown Extended AGAIN: Stop Obeying! Take Back Your Freedom… 


Notice the poster in the crowd outside Downing Street, which correctly explains that it is the obedience of the people which is prolonging this nightmare. We must stop complying, stop being obedient sheep. Think for yourself. Go back to living your life as you did before the Government locked us down “only for three weeks to flatten the curve” – a monumental lie.   

If we want to have our freedom back, we need to take it back – that is clear. The politicians and so-called health “experts” are not going to give up their power over us. That’s a fact.  If you disagree, say so in the comments below, but be sure to have a very good reason for your opinion because I, for one, won’t be easily convinced. The Governments of the UK have turned rogue – when will you see that for yourself?   

“Gay” Activist Groups Welcome New Rules for Blood Donors – Do You? 

a man standing in front of a building: Married couple Steven Smillie and Tyler McNeil mark the changes to blood donation rules at Edinburgh Donor Centre in Scotland - PA© PAMarried couple Steven Smillie and Tyler McNeil mark the changes to blood donation rules at Edinburgh Donor Centre in Scotland


The new eligibility criteria, which came into force on World Blood Donor Day on Monday, mean donors will no longer be asked if they are a man who has had sex with another man, NHS Blood and Transplant said.

Instead, any individual who attends to give blood regardless of gender will be asked if they have had sex and, if so, about recent sexual behaviours, it added.

Anyone who has had the same sexual partner for the last three months will be eligible to donate, meaning more gay and bisexual men will be able to donate blood, platelets and plasma while keeping blood just as safe, it added.

The changes will come into effect for donors in England, Scotland and Wales.

Ella Poppitt, chief nurse for blood donation at NHS Blood and Transplant, said: “Patient safety is at the heart of everything we do.

“This change is about switching around how we assess the risk of exposure to a sexual infection, so it is more tailored to the individual.

“We screen all donations for evidence of significant infections, which goes hand-in-hand with donor selection to maintain the safety of blood sent to hospitals.

“All donors will now be asked about sexual behaviours which might have increased their risk of infection, particularly recently acquired infections. This means some donors might not be eligible on the day but may be in the future.”

The changes to the donor safety check form will affect blood, plasma and platelet donors but the process of giving blood will not change.

Eligibility will be based on individual circumstances surrounding health, travel and sexual behaviours shown to be at a higher risk of sexual infection, NHS Blood and Transplant said.

Under the changes people can donate if they have had the same sexual partner for the last three months, or if they have a new sexual partner with whom they have not had anal sex and there is no known recent exposure to a sexually transmitted infection (STI) or recent use of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) or post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP).

Anyone who has had anal sex with a new partner or with multiple partners in the last three months will be not be able to give blood but may be eligible in the future, it said.

The changes were welcomed by charities including the National Aids Trust, Stonewall and Terrence Higgins Trust.

Robbie de Santos, director of communications and external affairs for Stonewall, said: “We welcome today’s historic change, which will help ensure more gay and bi men can donate blood and represents an important step towards a donation selection policy entirely based on an individualised assessment of risk.

“We want to see a blood donation system that allows the greatest number of people to donate safely and we will continue to work with Government to build on this progress and ensure that more people, including LGBT+ people, can donate blood safely in the future.”

But the Terrence Higgins Trust said that the Government had kept a “discriminatory restriction” in England which will affect black communities’ ability to give blood.

The restriction relates to a three-month deferral period for anyone who has a “partner who has, or you think may have been, sexually active in parts of the world where HIV/Aids is very common” and references “most countries in Africa”, the charity added.

Its chief executive Ian Green said: “It’s great news that far more gay and bisexual men can safely donate blood from today.

“But the excitement of that announcement is significantly dampened by another discriminatory question being retained by government in the blood donation process in England, which presents a significant barrier to black donors in particular giving blood.

“This is despite it being removed in both Scotland and Wales, and the blood service actively encouraging black communities to donate plasma and blood due to shortages.”   Source…


Should health rules be totally independent of  “discrimination” considerations?   Is there anything in health care that should not be subject to the whims of the “Discrimination Police”?

Of course, the key question is this:  why were homosexuals prohibited from donating blood in the first place?  If there was no good reason, then that’s odd, to put it mildly, However, if there was/is  a “health” reason, then surely it is wrong to  place the wider population at risk, on grounds of equal treatment – i.e. not wanting to “discriminate” against homosexuals.  Notice that even the remaining rule – a three-month deferral period for anyone who has a “partner who has, or you think may have been, sexually active in parts of the world where HIV/Aids is very common” and references “most countries in Africa” – is being challenged by the Terrence Higgins Trust.  Surely, this is a matter of huge concern? 

What if the above restriction is, in time, removed under LGBT+ pressure?    Isn’t it cause for concern that for reasons of political correctness, the population at large may be put at risk by the NHS – an NHS, remember, which is allegedly so anxious for us all to “stay safe”? 

Catholic Universe & Catholic Times Closed – Celebrate! Thank you Covid! 

It’s difficult to describe my delight on hearing that two of the worst of the allegedly Catholic newspapers have bitten the dust. 

Westminster Fly, our well-informed blogger from south of the border, alerted me to this news, with a hint to the effect that it surely demands a celebratory thread.  You bet!  Consider it done. 

Modernist to their fingertips, despite their claims to orthodox Catholicity, there is nothing to be lost and everything to be gained from their passing. RIP.   

In the case of the Catholic Times, the stated aim was to “Follow Peter” – Yeah right.  It was tailor made to Follow Francis, but Peter?  Not remotely.  As for The Catholic Universe – great for wrapping fish ‘n chips.

Both publications were always apparently reluctant to publish letters from readers displaying symptoms of orthodoxy, while those with outright “traditionalist” leanings had more chance of being published in the Morning Star.  

This was particularly annoying because some of us were trying to have important errors corrected, notably those peddled by Monsignor Basil Loftus in his column in the Catholic Times week after week after week until his column was cancelled – I believe in 2018.  Until then, however, he’d done untold damage.

He regularly mocked the traditional Latin Mass (for which he appears to have a particular hatred), and he challenged various dogmas, including the physical Resurrection of Christ and His Real Presence in the Eucharist. Loftus denied, too, the infallibility of the Church’s moral teaching and the impossibility of authorising the ordination of women.  He was “woke” before “woke” was invented. 

Hence our dismay when we discovered that, on the odd occasion when a letter of concern about his column was published, the Editor also published a letter from Loftus right alongside, where he was allowed to defend his statements and repeat his errors for good measure.  Incredible. It was easy to deduce, therefore, that the Editor held the same beliefs as Loftus, that he adhered to the same heresies and errors.  So, the old saying “what goes around comes around” sprang to my mind on hearing this wonderful news of the death of this rag and its sister rag, the not-so-Catholic Universe. 

We did challenge the refusal of the Catholic Times to publish a letter of correction about Catholic Truth some years ago, by lodging a complaint with the Press Complaints Commission.  We won.  The Editor – silly man – was forced to publish my letter and thus shown up for his unjust censorship. Numpty. 

Then, of course, there was the matter of plagiarism.  That was one fun edition, which I thoroughly enjoyed writing up – our November, 2004 edition.  Headlined The Catholic Times – like a thief in the night, we revealed that our September 2004 report on Koran readings permitted at Mass in a Glasgow primary school by the unrepentant priest who said that, not only would he not apologise for arranging those Koran readings, he would do the same thing again.  Well, blow me, didn’t the Catholic Times use our report without acknowledging the source.  Lamely, they tried to defend their theft, but the evidence, needless to say, was on the side of Catholic Truth.  We still await their apology. Don’t suppose we’ll get one now. Still, the closure of the Anything-But-Catholic-Times is compensation enough…

What about you… Do you lament the passing of these two newspapers or are  you, like me and moi, absolutely delighted that the March of Modernism in the UK has been stopped in its tracks, at least for now?  There’s still the Catholic Herald, mind you, and the awful Tablet but the latter is mostly read by Anglicans (or was, last time I checked);  in any event,  shouldn’t we now be thanking the Lord for small mercies?  And what about that virus, then?  Who’d have thought it?  It was bound to do some good, eventually… 😀 Thank you, Covid!  Now go away!   

Joe Biden in UK – No Major Gaffes… Yet! 


Below, a selection of the comments from the above YouTube platform – they say it better than I could! 

I can only imagine how productive this meeting was / Talking about environmental issues when Boris took a jet from London to Cornwall / Johnson..” talking with Biden is like a breath of fresh air”..Awwwww, sweet, were they holding hands running through a wheat field together also / Ah, just imagine that conversation lol. Johnson constantly mumbling gibberish while Biden tries to remember who Johnson is and what day it is. The west is [blanked!] / Keep anyone you love away from the man “I love those barrettes in your hair. Man I’ll tell you what, look at her, she looks like she’s 19-years-old sitting there like a little lady with her legs crossed,”  [Ed: this refers to a comment which Biden directed at a child during an event in the USA recently.] Anyone seen or heard Biden take a question from the UK press yet? …his staff rush the press out No Questions    Ends. 

Firstly, note the gushing Jon Sopel in the above BBC report – he was vicious when reporting on Donald Trump.  Totally vicious.  Anyway,  what do you think so far about the visit to the UK of the new resident in the White House?  Jill Biden was photographed sitting at the presidential desk on the plane “prepping” for the G7 – is she going to be present at the meetings, does anyone know?  Even with Jill in attendance, the gaffes keep coming, so it will be interesting to see what, if any, gaffes are revealed to the world this week.   More likely that we will be witnessing the mother of all cover-ups in that regard.    So, is the the above contributor is correct to say that  “the is west [blanked’] – do you agree?   

11 June: Feast of the Sacred Heart… 

Below, a couple of traditional hymns to honour the Sacred Heart of Jesus on this great Feast day – with thanks to those who performed. They are young volunteers who are keen to emphasise that they are not professional singers, but simply wanted to honour Our Lord. Enjoy!


Today is a good day to pray for our special intentions – not least for the return of friends and family members who have abandoned the practice of the Faith.  And, of course, as ever, feel free to discuss relevant issues and to post your favourite prayers, novenas, stories of wonderful graces, and hymns.  To check out the history of the devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, click here…     

Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, I place all my trust in Thee…

Happy Feast to all Catholic Truth bloggers and readers !    

Scotland’s New Chief Scientific Officer – Expert in Animal & Plant Health…

Professor Julie Fitzpatrick graduated from Glasgow’s School of Veterinary Medicine with the McCall Award for most outstanding veterinary student, and has worked principally on UK and global livestock health and welfare in the last three decades. She is currently chairwoman of both the UK Science Partnership for Animal and Plant Health and the UK Scientific Advisory Board, and non-executive director of the Animal and Plant Health Agency. (The Scotsman, 4/6/21)

Below,  read Martin Blackshaw’s (aka blogger Athanasius) letter to Scotland’s newly appointed Chief Scientific Officer, Professor Julie Fitzpatrick OBE…

Dear Professor Fitzpatrick,

I note that you have been appointed to the position of Chief Scientific Advisor to the government and that you are already advising the urgent vaccination of children as essential to the reduction of COVID-19 transmission rates.

Before further advising on such a potentially-catastrophic programme you may wish to read the linked expert testimonies, including an Open Letter to New Zealand’s Prime Minister, penned by one of the country’s top lawyers, warning of criminal charges if the Pfizer vaccine rollout is not immediately halted in light of devastating new research highlighting the danger it poses to human beings.

I understand that your background is in veterinary, not human, vaccination and disease control, which raises the question of why our government recruited you and Professor Jason Leitch (a dental specialist) to spearhead its response to the “COVID pandemic”.

It seems to me that if the situation is as dire as the government has been conveying to the population then it surely warrants experts in the fields of human epidemiology and virology to fill such positions. This is especially critical in terms of accurate scientific information being related to the general public via the media.

At any rate, you may or may not be aware that COVID-19 is statistically no greater a threat to global humanity than seasonal flu. This is a well documented fact that can be very easily verified by objective reading of official figures reporting the infection/death ratio. It is also a documented fact that the new “variants” are very similar in structure to the source virus and therefore pose no significant new threat. Hence, the global governmental response to COVID remains both unwarranted and unlawful, particularly in the matter of enforced and/or coerced vaccination which breaches medical ethics, international law and the protocols of Nuremberg.

If the pharmaceutical experts responsible for the vaccines are themselves admittedly ignorant of the short and long term effects of this rushed experimental technology on human subjects then the government should not be peddling it via the media as “safe”.

Indications from chronicled deaths and other serious adverse reactions are that it is anything but safe. This is hardly surprising given that its spike protein, a toxic pathogen, is now known to spread from the initial inoculation site into the bloodstream. This shocking discovery should be sufficient in itself to warrant immediate cessation of the vaccine programme, yet the revelation is irresponsibly (and criminally) suppressed while the programme is expanded to include children who have never been at risk from this virus. To make matters worse, data suggests that the vaccines are not even effective in preventing viral transmission.

Dr. Mike Yeadon, former Vice President of Pfizer and also that company’s Chief Scientific Officer responsible for vaccine research for respiratory viruses, particularly Coronaviruses, has declared publicly that he is terrified by what is happening. His experience with previous vaccine research in this field is that they have all failed due to delayed serious adverse reactions. He simply cannot understand why this new nanotechnology, which is irreversible due to its action on the body’s cells, is being rolled out as safe across the globe when it hasn’t undergone the lengthy clinical trials required by law and ethics to ensure its safety.

They don’t come more qualified than Dr. Yeadon, who, with 32 years of experience, is one of the most eminent voices in the field of virology and immunology, yet he is silenced by a government-controlled media which suppresses his and many other eminent scientific and medical testimonies opposing the pseudo-scientific narrative of politicians and their “experts” regarding this pandemic.

Another such eminent voice is that of Dr. John Lee, a former Consultant Pathologist with the NHS, likewise silenced by unscrupulous politicians and media moguls. The policy appears to be one of a 24/7 psychological terror campaign against the people with all opposition to the official narrative being actively and deliberately suppressed.

The same is true with regard to uncomfortable World Health Organisation advice which is at odds with the narrative. Some months back, for example, the WHO advised all governments against locking down their nations as a means of restricting virus transmission, citing this unprecedented measure as “counter-productive” and “destructive”. The scientific rationale underpinning this critical advice is that once a virus is in the population lockdowns are utterly useless as a method of control – they merely slow the spread of the virus for the duration of the lockdown while visiting catastrophe on economies and human wellbeing, both mental and physical. The media did not report on this advice and governments everywhere ignored it.

Further to this, the WHO issued statements to the effect that face coverings and social distancing are not grounded in peer-reviewed science and have proven to be of little value in reducing viral transmission. Again, the media and governments remained silent and continued with their programme. Then, more recently, the WHO declared that PCR testing was never intended for use as a solitary diagnostic tool on the general population and must not be used in this way to diagnose and isolate asymptomatic people, “who are likely not infected”. That information was also suppressed and the psychological terror campaign continued. What does this tell the thinking person about the government mantra “we follow the science”?

Even non-scientists know that PCR testing cannot distinguish between a live virus and a dead one, much less between COVID and the common cold. We also know that “case” numbers can be manipulated by governments by simply upping the testing cycles beyond the recommended 20-25, thereby guaranteeing a higher number of false positives to suit political and “big pharma” ends.

The proper method of PCR testing, says the WHO, is to use it only in conjunction with medical symptom checking and other diagnostic tools, yet it is rolled out as an infallible means of testing to drive up case numbers and enforce self-isolating imprisonment on asymptomatic citizens. There are no medical or scientific papers that I am aware of pre-COVID upon which this asymptomatic transmission of virus narrative is based – it is simply invented to justify unlawful overreach by governments.

I should state in conclusion that I am neither a conspiracy nut nor a per se opponent of vaccination. Rather, I am an objective and open-minded citizen who has researched every aspect of this virus via official sources over many hundreds of hours, paying absolutely no attention to the controlled media, as human reason demands.

What I have discovered throughout my research is shocking, especially in relation to these dangerous experimental vaccines, the imposition of which by force or psychological coercion, reeks of Dr. Mengele!

I sincerely hope I am wrong in my prediction that some months from now there will be huge numbers of deaths in the world as a result of these vaccines. This is the dire prediction of Dr. Yeadon and other eminent men of his stature which I share given the evidence that is already suggestive of a forthcoming human catastrophe.

If and when, God forbid, such a tragedy occurs there will be no blaming it on a dangerous new variant of the virus, which narrative, as I have already pointed out, is unsustainable in light of scientific evidence showing the variants to be of little difference in structure or threat to the source virus.

Venturing my own opinion in the matter, I am firmly of the belief that what the world is witnessing right now is the greatest crime ever perpetrated against humanity. COVID-19 has never been a threat to the healthy populations of nations – a truth easily verifiable by officially statistics and declarations, not least Professor Chris Whitty’s unguarded May 11, 2020, declaration from Downing Street that “for most people COVID-19 is harmless”.

Whatever the real end game is, and I suspect it is about changing the way we live in the free world, shifting from democratic to totalitarian government by means of pseudo-scientific fascism and the deliberate suppression of informed public and political debate, people are beginning to catch on that something is very seriously amiss with this perpetual totalitarian terror programme which, you may recall, began in March 2020 under the pretext of “a few weeks to flatten the curve”.

Joseph Stalin, Ruler, Soviet Union 1927-1953

That few weeks has now extended to 16 months of Police State tactics frighteningly reminiscent of the dictatorships of Nazi Germany, the former USSR and present-day China and North Korea, whose despotic leaders likewise claimed or claim to remove civil liberties, enforce medical experimentation, suppress religious worship, administer arbitrary fines, deprive people of their right to earn a decent living, etc, as in the best interests of the nation. All reasonable and rational people, on the contrary, recognise such tactics as manifestations of evil governance.

As regards my own situation, I am now 16 months furloughed from work with no end in sight. My brother has already lost his employment, as have many others, while I live in daily dread of that phone call from my employers confirming an end to my career. You will never know the psychological and emotional torment of such a protracted nightmare. It is  unwarranted, unlawful and completely unjustifiable abuse of authority that will surely be investigated and condemned judicially in the near future in a Nuremberg-type trial.

What is currently unfolding around the globe in the name of this relatively harmless respiratory virus has no precedent in human history, not even in response to real plagues that killed tens of millions. The wanton destruction that has been inflicted on the global economy as well as on human life is incalculable. The targeting now of the young for unnecessary vaccination is absolutely unconscionable.

My advice to you, therefore, is not to advise the government further in any aspect of this COVID-19 racket. The truth has a habit of coming out in the end and when the suppressed truths about COVID are finally revealed to the public a lot of people presently in positions of authority and influence, believing themselves exempt from the mandates of medical ethics and international law, will have some seriously searching questions to answer regarding this fabricated health crisis.

The process is already underway by a large group of lawyers, medical professionals and economists from across the globe uniting in a lawsuit against the purveyors of the COVID scam, accusing them of “crimes against humanity”. The case is being prepared for presentation to the judiciary of California. You won’t have heard that in the mainstream media, so here’s the link for verification:


Martin Blackshaw


Once again, we owe a debt of gratitude to Martin for writing to the Scottish Government about the scandal of, as he so aptly describes it, “this fabricated health crisis”.  Share your thoughts – how can the Government justify employing an expert in animal and plant health, as Chief Scientific Advisor on the “Covid [fabricated] crisis”?