2007 - 2021

Tories and the CoronaBrexit- Exposed: the real scandal at our borders

The Daily Mail’s front page is going viral but the truth about Boris Johnson has been in plain sight for over a year.
*
We’re about to witness once again how fickle the British tabloid press is. Having spent years cultivating the idea of Johnson as a loveable rogue, now they’re telling their readers that he’s a sociopath. But as the right-wing press turns on the leader they’ve promoted – it’s very clear that his enemies are on maneuvers. But beware anyone suggesting that Michael Gove or Dominic Cummings are somehow preferable to Boris Johnson, and beware anyone suggesting the Daily Mail is a credible newspaper. Johnson’s problems are piling high, with the Jennifer Arcuri scandal, the flat renovations issue, the stories of Tory sleaze everywhere, the £2.6 m media suite, and the impending wipeout of the Scottish Tories.

Do watch and share this film about how the energy of Johnson and Patel was focused on the “threat” of immigrants and asylum seekers while ignoring the true threat of the virus. We now know that this wasn’t incompetence or just prioritizing business over people, it was a deliberate strategy. This death spiral was part political expediency, part lobbying pressure from the airline industry, and part the ridiculous entitled populism of libertarian narcissism that can’t imagine not being able to fly anywhere anytime – all brought together by a sociopathic leader who imagined himself as Superman.

What Johnson calls “freedom of exchange” here allows him to see himself as “the super-charged champion” that will defend the “right of populations of the earth to buy and sell freely among each other”. This is a potent mixture of Etonian narcissism, Anglo-exceptionalism and Brexit mania boasted by a man who has presided over one of the worst handling of corona virus in the world. It is capitalism as a death cult. The speech below is from Greenwich in February 2020 and it shows the framing and attitude with which Johnson sees the world:

 

This report by Hassan Akkad is brilliant at exposing the relationship between the British government’s hypocrisy on border control. As the revelations about Johnson’s true attitude to the public spill out in to the open and other forces govern from the shadows, the relationship between the racist polices and culture emboldened by Brexit and the inability of government to restrict peoples behavior for the collective good is revealed. Profit above people at all times.

Comments (22)

Join the Discussion

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  1. Maclean says:

    The greatest threat to the country ( be that England / Scotland or the U.K.) has and will always be a Unionist and Tory government. They have a use and abuse attitude to the common people and the taxpayers Mooney is their to use and abuse as they see fit . The border would be a god send to get the mind set change that Westminster needs to stop their colonist culture in its tracks. The “ in servitude “ to Westminster would send an earthquake through the unionists as they finally get it into their thick heads “ it’s over” and a new ,better and brighter future is Scotland destiny without the unionists jackboot.

  2. Tom Ultuous says:

    Hassan’s report is indeed brilliant Mike. The truth is the “UK” govt never really came out of herd immunity mode. They merely paid lip service to the “science” to keep the thick alliance onside and because they realised the potential for plundering the public purse. The “UK” will now be rife with the Indian variant because they didn’t follow Scotland’s lead to make ALL arrivals self-isolate in hotels. The bodies will indeed be piled in their thousands once the “Full English” typhoid Marys are finally unleashed on foreign holiday destinations.

    Meanwhile the EU have told Patel where to stick her request for a migration pact that would allow the return of asylum seekers to the first EU country they entered.

  3. Neil MacGillivray says:

    Hassan Akkad’s film should be shared widely and heard and seen.

    There should be widespread anger at a Government who failed to protect its people and cared not a jot at the mounting death rate. Their reward? A lead in the polls. It beggars belief.

    Thank you for the link

  4. James Mills says:

    Strangely ( NOT ! ) no UK mainstream media organisation has produced such a concise and clear statement of the UK Government’s non-actions in the face of a virus that was well telegraphed .

    1. Iain MacLean says:

      An excellent well researched article, a devastating rebuke to a toxic tory government!

      Blame the immigrant for problems they didn’t create whilst covering up and diverting eyes away from the problems you create!

      Many, many mistakes have been made by governments all over the world regards Covid, including the Scottish Government. However the the issues highlighted by Hassan are not mistakes, they are deliberate actions of the uk government akin to mass man slaughter!

      1. Tom Ultuous says:

        “they are deliberate actions of the uk government akin to mass man slaughter”

        I tend to agree with that. How much does it cost the state to keep an elderly person in care for the rest of their lives? It obviously depends on how long they live but probably it averages out at several hundred thousand pounds. May failed to get a majority because of her dementia tax. Johnson wasn’t for falling into the same trap. Why not just kill them instead?

        As I said in an earlier post, the Tories never really abandoned herd immunity. They just decided to do it on the sly to pay lip service to the “science” so as to keep the thick alliance onside.

  5. Dougie Blackwood says:

    The Tories have been overtaken by the racists. Nigel Farage and his populist message took over the policies of the Tory pary and turned them into a clone of UKIP and BNP. Now it has become mainstream within the UK media that there is no way back to any attempt at a open inclusive society. Jeremy Corbyn was howled down and replaced by another, more suitably right wing, leader. Even our royalty and their adherents are tainted by the ethos that is prevalent throughout the upper echelons of English society. Harry married someone that was not acceptable to the mob and he gave up rather than suffer the continual indignity that lay before him.

  6. John S Warren says:

    Excellent article; and I tip my hat to Mr Akkad.

    I wrote an article in Bella Caledonia some time ago, ‘Tackling Coronavirus via the Taiwan Model, or Boris Boosterism: the fabled and the flatulent in public policy’ (Bella Caledonia, 20th January, 2021), addressing the scandalous failure to protect UK public health and security, specifically through the UK Government’s quite deliberate failure to close our borders against importation of the virus when urgently required, and in spite of evidence for the clear success of the policy elsewhere in the world (Taiwan especially, New Zealand, and other island states). In below the line comments to that article, Mr Learmonth attempted to attribute border controls to Communism, or the threat of Communism. ‘Zoonotic Huawei’ attempted to muddy the water, by deflection of attention from the obvious success of border closure, into a blanket attack on lockdowns: “I am proposing that lockdowns are a bad idea anywhere”.

    In another article, ’The World Turned Upside Down’ (Bella Caledonia, 27th Match, 2020), I referred to the depth of a public health calamity in which: “the shock of a pandemic threatens the nation’s people”; a challenge which the below-the-line commenter ‘grafter’ easily disposed of, with a single word riposte; “really?”. In yet another article, ‘The Resistable Rise of Dominic Cummings’, (Bella Caledonia, 15th August, 2019), I offered a calculated warning on Cummings’ rise as the brains behind Boris, and on the nature of the new Government Johnson led. Mr Henderson rebutted my criticism of, “the absurd upside-down world of Boris Johnson residing in Downing Street and a no-deal Brexit now the imminent political outcome”; a result triumphantly delivered by Cummings (a person whom the Conservative MP and ex-Attorney General Dominic Grieve had described as displaying “characteristic arrogance and ignorance”, and accusing Cummings specifically of basic “ignorance” of how the constitution works). An article to which Mr Henderson provided what he considered the crushing response that covered everything necessary: “Phew, I’m so pleased to hear that we needn’t fear Salmond… -Sturgeon-Swinson-Starmer-Grieve-Bercow-Clarke-Harman (of ginger rodent fame)-Blackford-Lucas-Bebb (not to be confused with the BEEB of course)-Letwin, et al, who appear to be the attempted subverters of the largest democratic [sic] in the UK’s history, where 17,410,742 voters, who answered the question – ‘Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?”] – with the response, ‘Leave the European Union [×]!’. Who knew it would cause such a hysterical response from literally dozens of europhiles, in the political arena and in the MSM? Who knew?…”. Dominic Grieve has now formed his final opinion that Boris Johnson is nothing more than a “vacuum of integrity” (Guardian, 24th April, 2021).

    From time to time, when we are assaulted on all sides by a vacuum of integrity, and threatened with being finally overwhelmed, principally by an incompetent and shoddy, tawdry Government, or neoliberal Unionists in a constant, aggressive outrage about the inviolability of their personal liberty, even in a pandemic, a liberty they are determined to prosecute at everyone else’s risk – no matter what; it is as well to reflect, for a moment and in these anxious circumstances, before being totally engulfed by their Government, and your own life and liberty casually being put in jeopardy by the egregiously self-interested and self-promoting; on the underlying nature of the problem, the nature of the opposition, and how vacuums of integrity so often succeed in their intolerable ambitions.

    1. John Learmonth says:

      Mr Warren,
      Leaving aside your mis-representation of my opinion on one of your previous articles the answer to your questions is very simple.
      If you don’t like what the govt is doing then don’t vote for them and if enough people agree with you then a new govt will replace it , hopefully to your liking.
      Unless of course your advocating a different political system where the opinions of ‘stupid’ people (i.e people who disagree with you) can/should be ignored. If so please elaborate

      Best regards
      John

      1. Tom Ultuous says:

        “If you don’t like what the govt is doing then don’t vote for them and if enough people agree with you then a new govt will replace it. ”

        Not guaranteed under the current “whose turn is it to be dictator” system. Are you advocating a different political system John?

      2. Due to our unique constitutional settlement what you describe simply doesn’t exist. We have two governments. One we elect and one someone else elects for us.

        1. Colin Robinson says:

          Well, on that reckoning, in my neck of the woods we have two governments, both of which someone else elects for us.

      3. John S Warren says:

        Misrepresentation? I have quoted what you wrote; there is no misrepresentation. I invite you (or anyone) to go to the thread and check what you wrote.

        As for the voting point; this is more deflection. Here is the problem: we have a ‘vacuum of integrity’ in Downing Street; frankly, I trust the judgement of Dominic Grieve, or Max Hastings, who made the mistake of employing Johnson and considers him unfit for the office of Prime Minister, or of Peter Oborne over that of Johnson and his acolytes; they know him better than I do, and are all Conservatives. This whole disgrace is all ‘inside the tent’.

        In Scotland it doesn’t matter how we vote we will have a vacuum of integrity in 10, Downing Street, as long as sleaze, and the whole sorry mess does not “cut through” with a proven pro-Conservative electorate; and in a Parliament that only requires 29% of the total electorate to give Johnson an 80-seat majority, and effective absolute power in Parliament (read Dicey). Speaking for myself, I do not want to live in a polity that is indifferent to choosing ‘vacuums of integrity’.

        It seems you do not care. Fine, but I decline to be dragged down to that level. I wouldn’t bank on the fact that Scotland is equally indifferent, if you are hoping that will save the Union; because this really is about important political and constituional matters; whether Government is trustworthy.

        1. John Learmonth says:

          Mr Warren,

          No govt is trustworthy, even a Scottish one.
          If you want trust in life get yourself a dog.

          John

          1. John S Warren says:

            Mr Learmonth,

            Now that is a level of cynicism to which even I am unable to aspire. The Ancient Greek school of the Cynic found its name, because the Greeks thought that the lack of shame displayed by Diogenes deserved the name ‘the dog’; ho kyōn. While you advise me to own a dog, it seems you are happy to be one.

          2. Colin Robinson says:

            There are a anumber of accounts of how the Cynics got their name. My favourite is that the founder of the school, Antisthenes, taught at the Kynosarges, just outside Athens. The ‘White/Shining/Swift Dog’ was a temple of Heracles, gymnasium, and grove. In was fairly common for schools of Hellenistic philosophy to get their names from the places where their scholars congregated.

            The Cynics held that virtue (becoming what one is) is the end of all life. Virtue is realised in humans when they live in accordance with the ‘logos’ (nature as revealed by reason). It is achieved, they taught, through the practice of self-sufficiency (independence), equanimity and indifference to the vicissitudes of life, philanthropy, and candour. Cynics also prescribed ‘anaideia’ (a subversive ‘shamelessness’ or ‘impudence’) in relation to the ‘nomos’ (the laws, customs, and social conventions that people take for granted) when it conflicts with the ‘logos’.

            A famous Cynic parable concerns Diogenes, whom Alexander the Great sought out while on a visit to Athens. Alexander found Diogenes sunbathing on the steps of a temple. “I’m Alexander, ruler of the world,” he announced himself, casting his shadow over Diogenes supine body. “Is that right?” Diogenes replied. “Well, f*ck off out of my light.”

            The world can always do with more cynicism.

        2. John Learmonth says:

          Mr Warren,
          If you choose to put your faith in honest politicians (is that a contradiction of terms) then so be it.
          All I know is at 7am tomorrow morning my loyal Patterdale terrier (Frank) will want to go for a poo walk. If only Boris (or for that matter Nicola) could be so well trained.
          Keep well!
          John

          1. John S Warren says:

            Mr Learmonth,

            I see the best you can come up with is limp ‘whataboutery’. Never fear, the call will no doubt follow you, while out on your dog-walk on election day; the Conservatives devised dog-whistle politics specially for electors just like you. Have a nice walk.

        3. John Learmonth says:

          Mr Warren,
          Just so you know I’m one of the 30% who don’t bother with the ‘political process’.
          i.e dont bother voting for whichever bunch of corrupt narcissists want to ‘represent the people’.
          In time you’ll get yourself a dog and agree….

  7. John S Warren says:

    Mr Learmonth,

    I have completely lost you. The indulgence of a ‘vacuum of integrity’ comes from someone who does not vote. So the vacuum of integrity is given a completely free ride by you; but if I merely comment and protest against the outrage of his governemt in different articles in Bella Caledonaia you take the time to come on and – with open cynicism – tell me to desist or give up, so that life is even easier for the worst PM; probably since Neville Chamberlain. If you believe what you have said, why are you here, why did you bother to dismiss my argument in a previous article out of hand, and without offering any evidence? What is the point? You now tell me none to it has any point; you “don’t bother with the ‘political process’”. You do not care, ut you decide to to attempt to bother me, by taking up my time. Mr Learmonth, you are at best simply a complete time-waster.

    1. John Learmonth says:

      Mr Warren,
      I haven’t told you to desist, putting words in my mouth once again.
      Your perfectly free to voice whatever opinion you want but don’t complain when the people who choose to vote ignore you.
      Your articles (and responses) have a certain element of ‘noblesse oblige’ about them as in ‘how dare you plebs disagree with me!”
      Incidentally you can be interested in politics without actually been bothered to vote, thats the joy of our democratic system (for all its faults)
      Anyway thats it from me, taking Frank out for his evening poo.
      Enjoy the evening.

      1. John S Warren says:

        That is just the point – you didn’t ignore me; not the first time, over the pandemic, and not now. I wish you had. I really wish you had. Everything you write is a contradiction.

        “If you don’t like what the govt is doing then don’t vote for them and if enough people agree with you then a new govt will replace it , hopefully to your liking.”

        Your earlier comment implied that if enough people agree a new government will replace it; but of course that in turn assumes that they vote for it. You, however do not actually subscribe to the argument you proposed, and it is reasonable for a reader to surmise, actually believed. Now that I would fairly describe as a “misrepresentation”, since you ‘can’t be bothered with the whole political process’ except, of course to crticise those who do bother (whatever their voting intentions).

        Now you are claiming you are ‘interested’ in politics, but not ‘bothered’ to vote. You can be interested in politics and decline to vote, or refuse to participate in the process: but I challenge the coherence of being both “interested” in politics but not “bothered” to vote. “Not bothered” implies you do not care. For example, how can you write that you will not be , “voting for whichever bunch of corrupt narcissists want to ‘represent the people’”, as an example of not being ‘bothered’, with the “political process”? Nor do I understand why you can’t be bothered, except to argue with someone who objects to the narcissIsts. Incidentally, I once went to court (in England) to attempt to remove my name from the electoral register (in England), because I wanted to make my own statement of distaste for the nature of the ‘political process’ before a General Election; it failed, but I did not put myself through that court process (representing my position in court in front of a judge), because I wasn’t “bothered”.

        Stick to walking the dog, at least that makes some sense and doesn’t waste other people’s time.

Help keep our journalism independent

We don’t take any advertising, we don’t hide behind a pay wall and we don’t keep harassing you for crowd-funding. We’re entirely dependent on our readers to support us.

Subscribe to regular bella in your inbox

Don’t miss a single article. Enter your email address on our subscribe page by clicking the button below. It is completely free and you can easily unsubscribe at any time.