Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

1,188 profile views

boswellian's Achievements


Apprentice (3/14)

  • First Post
  • Collaborator Rare
  • Reacting Well Rare
  • Conversation Starter
  • One Month Later

Recent Badges



  1. https://t.me/worlddoctorsalliance/21456 Letter to BJ I consider the questions raised in that letter to be very pertinent. Who can name UK / GB delegates for starters? Why is there no reporting of this issue?
  2. https://t.me/worlddoctorsalliance/21456 Letter to BJ
  3. The following letter, drafted by a lawyer, certainly addresses my concerns. It seems to me that very little in the treaty is specified clearly. And we are supplied with little concrete information, although the proposals appear potentially far-reaching. WHO is far from infallible. https://t.me/worlddoctorsalliance/21456
  4. They are voting on the amendments on 22. May. . I completed a response to the consultation, and submitted it. I have researched this on many websites, including WHO. I used this link because it provides templates which can be used for responses. Is your above, seemingly dismissive, response a guarantee for us that nothing can impede our sovereignty? After all we have spent two years under very questionable restrictions, already. If you are stating that the amendments are of no consequence and present absolutely no threat to us I will reassure the many concerned prominent critics of this proposal including the doctors of the World Health Council, who I am a sure will appreciate your reassurances. https://worldcouncilforhealth.org/campaigns/stop-the-who/2022/05/24-hours-left-comment-at-the-stakeholder-listening-session-for-75th-world-health-assembly/74090/
  5. The WHO treaty is genuine. Biden is on vIdeo referring to this. If you can prove that there is no risk to our sovereignty, personal and otherwise, please do so. I have actually already responded to the very brief consultation period given by WHO. Thanks to other sources of news, I was alerted to this. Don’t make the mistake of knocking sources before you verify.
  6. I intend to respond but am unsure how we are represented in Westminster. Does anyone here know, please?
  7. Very few are aware of the WHO meeting in Geneva on 22nd May 2022.. The following document explains how this will have a serious impact on our lives, if the treaty and amendments are approved. Yet the media is stumm. https://t.me/robinmg/19555 (This is the WHO document) Those who are concerned are being urged to respond: URGENT CALL TO ACTION THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE INTERNATIONAL HEALTH REGULATIONS, DUE TO BE DISCUSSED THIS WEEKEND AT THE 75TH WORLD HEALTH ALLIANCE, AFFECT YOU AND YOUR COUNTRY – ACT NOW! Please contact your MP to express your deep concern about the proposed amendments using the templates below. Please follow the instructions carefully. INSTRUCTIONS 1) Use this link to check if your MP is a member of the Cabinet https://members.parliament.uk/Government/Cabinet 2) If they are, send MAIN DOCUMENT (below) as an email (or postal letter) to them and include your name and postal address. 3) If your MP is NOT a member of the Cabinet, send MAIN DOCUMENT as an attachment and please include the COVER EMAIL. MAIN DOCUMENT Dear [insert name of Cabinet Minister], You may be aware of concerns by a significant number of the general public in relation to the World Health Organisation’s (“WHO”) plan to establish themselves as the singular controlling and guiding authority in world healthcare via the introduction of a new treaty. The proposed “Pandemic Treaty” supported by twenty-five heads of government, including Boris Johnson, is clearly very concerning however, I would like to draw your attention to a, potentially, more imminent threat to the sovereignty of Great Britain and Northern Ireland - the proposed amendments, submitted by the USA, to the International Health Regulations (2005) (“IHR”). By way of context, I shall provide a brief timeline: 1. January 2022 - a USA delegate of the Biden Administration, without public awareness, submitted to the WHO proposed amendments to the IHR (https://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/WHA75/A75_18-en.pdf). The Director General of the WHO Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus (“Tedros”) in turn submitted the proposals to the legislative body of the WHO, the World Health Assembly (“WHA”), for its consideration, in accordance with paragraph 1 of Article 55 of the IHR. In accordance with paragraph 2 of Article 55 of the IHR Tedros also communicated the text of the proposed amendments to all State Parties; 2. 12th April 2022 - the proposed amendments were made public; 3. 22nd to 28th May 2022 - the proposed amendments will be delivered, for a vote, to the WHA at the 75th World Health Assembly where the amendments are scheduled as provisional agenda item 16.2, “strengthening WHO preparedness for and response to health emergencies” (https://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/WHA75/A75_1Rev1-en.pdf). If the proposed amendments are passed they will: 1. empower Tedros to arbitrarily declare health emergencies in any nation on a unilateral basis and without the consent of the nation. Tedros will be able to declare a health crisis, or an emergency based solely on his personal opinion or his consideration that there is a “potential or possible threat”; 2. compromise the independence and sovereignty of all 193 United Nations members states (all members of the WHO), which would result in the WHO having power over 99.44% of the world’s population; 3. remove all obligations on the WHO and Tedros to “consult” with and to obtain “verification” from nation states where the possibility of a health emergency exists. The nation from within whose borders the potential emergency emanates will be rendered powerless. By deleting such language, the checks and balances placed upon the WHO and Tedros are removed allowing Tedros to declare an emergency at his will; 4. allow the WHO to take steps to collaborate with other nations and organisations worldwide to deal with the alleged emergency or crisis in a sovereign nation, even if that nation does not require or request the “assistance”; 5. reduce the existing timeframe for rejection of or reservation from the amendments from 18 months to a mere 6 months; and 6. allow the WHO to unilaterally develop and update “early warning criteria for assessing and progressively updating the national, regional, or global risk posed by an event of unknown causes or sources…”. Forty-seven nations support the US authored amendments and I assume you are aware that Great Britain and Northern Ireland are amongst that number. The IHR does not define what amounts to a health emergency, but it clearly goes beyond a pandemic, covering “illness or medical condition, irrespective of origin or source, that presents or could present significant harm to humans…” The WHO Constitution, which is a separate document from the IHR, does provide insight into what falls within the WHO mandate - it is extensive. When the two documents are considered together it is quite apparent that almost any problematic situation involving the people could be considered a “health” emergency and thus the WHO and Tedros could call a crisis over anything they choose. If passed, the extensive new powers are going to be vested in Tedros who was indicted before the International Criminal Court for war crimes committed against the people of his own country - Ethiopia. In addition, Tedros has strong links to the Chinese Communist Party - many believe that he was put in his current position of Director General as a direct consequence of that relationship. This makes the empowerment of Tedros and the WHO alarming. In light of the above, can you please provide answers to the following questions: 1. who are the delegates from Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the WHA? Each nation is permitted up to three delegates with one designated “Chief Delegate”; 2. were you aware of the proposed amendments? If so, what have you done to oppose them? COVER EMAIL Dear [Name of your non Cabinet MP], I am concerned about the imminent vote on proposed changes to the International Health Regulations (2005) submitted by the USA, in January 2022, to the World Health Organisation (WHO). It is my understanding that the said vote will be taking place at the 75th World Health Assembly (22nd to 28th May 2022). If the amendments are approved, I believe that our nations sovereignty will be ceded to an unelected, unaccountable supranational organisation to the detriment of the people of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I find it astonishing that the nation would go through Brexit just to concede power to the WHO essentially swapping governing by the EU for governing by the WHO. If the general public were aware of this, do you think they would accept it? Please find attached, for your information, a letter sent to the members of the Cabinet on this matter. I look forward to receiving your thoughts and your position on this very important issue. Best regards, [Your name and postal address] The comments in the template cover email are spot on. All the Brexit stuff, to hand over sovereignty on a plate to an unelected person who will dictate to the entire world. I have never posted on international forums before (as far as I can recall), but this is urgent. The pandemic treaty was already under consideration, but it is the US amendments which constitute a very serious and imminent threat to our sovereignty.
  8. Ah yes, now I remember why I don’t frequent the forums very often.
  9. Serve no purpose and a drain on the taxpayer……that could describe a lot of positions I would suggest.
  10. Well that’s is sad. However, I can’t comment on that area. I only know that further afield it is still achieved. And I suspect that if we continue to accept this situation it will only end in more deterioration and more prospects for large projects. I cannot see how looking after things is not possible. Or desirable? Surely, a well kept town promotes well-being and pride in it. Possibly less crime? That’s your area of course. But once anything, be it a car or a home is not looked after, others lose respect for it too. Good that you have badgered. That’s what is needed.
  11. But things were maintained in the past, even when we had a much smaller population to rip off. Other places can do this. I suspect maintenance doesn’t produce a lot of backhanders, whereas projects leave much more scope for this.
  12. Is he right? Or is he right? Frankly Douglas is a disgrace. Maintenance is the answer. He mentions how things were regularly maintained decades ago. I can remember this too. Shopkeepers were also proud of the appearance of their shops. I can recall, in Ramsey, how shopkeepers were out swilling down pavements and polishing brass finger plates in the morning. No one seems to take a pride in things anymore. But other places do. You can’t entice companies here when the ambience for their employees is simply unacceptable.
  13. A tragedy. Very , very sad. We all know so many places that still take a pride in their towns. Have locals become oblivious to this? Enough money for the prom renewal, which many didn’t want, but no funds, or no desire to ensure maintenance and upkeep? Thank you, Charles Guard. It needed to be said.
  • Create New...