Dixie Elliot ✈ There I was, caught wearing a mask by Neil Thornton yesterday. 

 
It might or might not keep the Covid 19 away but it certainly doesn't keep out the stink of political hypocrisy that has infected many people here in Derry. 

Of course I'm referring to the unholy alliance of Sinn Féin, the SDLP and PBP who formed a lynching mob to go after Anne McCloskey as a political opponent. That reason and that alone is clearly obvious.
These are politicians who are taking their lead from the lunatic Boris Johnson, whose Tory party along with Labour have run the NHS down so far that it now struggles to cope with this virus. 

These are politicians who took pay rises while freezing the pay of our nurses.

All those millions wasted in Stormont on scams like RHI which could have strengthened our health service locally and maybe added more ICU beds. 

Yet they chose a soft victim to go after. 

A doctor who returned from retirement to help out. 

Is she right or wrong about masks? 

We don't know, because those who shout the loudest about being censored in the past or the present sought to censor her by bullying her into silence. They want her burned at the stake for heresy.

As I wrote before, as a Republican, I have little in common with Aontú as they stayed with Sinn Féin for too long for my liking. And now they appear to have run off and abandoned Anne. 

For a while I honestly believed that PBP would actually shine a light into the dark corners of political corruption. 

They never even turned the light on. 

They did however want to jump into bed with Sinn Féin in the South in order to get into government. The same Sinn Féin which preferred to jump into bed with Fine Gael or Fianna Fáil. 

This isn't the Ireland of Pearse or Connolly. It is the Ireland of Varadkar and Martin. O'Neill and Foster. With the little parties all wanting a slice of the pie.

Sadly Anne has decided to step down as a councillor and I was shocked at the play ground bullies, who grew to adulthood but never grew up, in the comments section of the Derry Journal below that article.
The political vultures can now feast on her votes come the next council elections and turn on each other to see who gets the most carrion ...

 

Thomas Dixie Elliot is a Derry artist and a former H Block Blanketman.

Follow Dixie Elliot on Twitter @IsMise_Dixie

Vultures At The Feast Of Carrion

Dixie Elliot ✈ There I was, caught wearing a mask by Neil Thornton yesterday. 

 
It might or might not keep the Covid 19 away but it certainly doesn't keep out the stink of political hypocrisy that has infected many people here in Derry. 

Of course I'm referring to the unholy alliance of Sinn Féin, the SDLP and PBP who formed a lynching mob to go after Anne McCloskey as a political opponent. That reason and that alone is clearly obvious.
These are politicians who are taking their lead from the lunatic Boris Johnson, whose Tory party along with Labour have run the NHS down so far that it now struggles to cope with this virus. 

These are politicians who took pay rises while freezing the pay of our nurses.

All those millions wasted in Stormont on scams like RHI which could have strengthened our health service locally and maybe added more ICU beds. 

Yet they chose a soft victim to go after. 

A doctor who returned from retirement to help out. 

Is she right or wrong about masks? 

We don't know, because those who shout the loudest about being censored in the past or the present sought to censor her by bullying her into silence. They want her burned at the stake for heresy.

As I wrote before, as a Republican, I have little in common with Aontú as they stayed with Sinn Féin for too long for my liking. And now they appear to have run off and abandoned Anne. 

For a while I honestly believed that PBP would actually shine a light into the dark corners of political corruption. 

They never even turned the light on. 

They did however want to jump into bed with Sinn Féin in the South in order to get into government. The same Sinn Féin which preferred to jump into bed with Fine Gael or Fianna Fáil. 

This isn't the Ireland of Pearse or Connolly. It is the Ireland of Varadkar and Martin. O'Neill and Foster. With the little parties all wanting a slice of the pie.

Sadly Anne has decided to step down as a councillor and I was shocked at the play ground bullies, who grew to adulthood but never grew up, in the comments section of the Derry Journal below that article.
The political vultures can now feast on her votes come the next council elections and turn on each other to see who gets the most carrion ...

 

Thomas Dixie Elliot is a Derry artist and a former H Block Blanketman.

Follow Dixie Elliot on Twitter @IsMise_Dixie

25 comments:

  1. She sunk herself with her unbelievably daft war on facemasks. There's a reason why surgeons wear them when they are operating, can you guess why?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Surgeons work with open cavities, it's not a fair comparison. Why are we still having these debates? Everything has been said. People will wear or they won't.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh but it is, at the very least they provide some protection to surgeon and the meat on the slab.

      Delete
  3. David

    It is a legal requitement to wear masks in enclosed public spaces and those that refuse willfully to do so are potentially endangering the health an d lives of other, that's why. Masks prevent the spread of droplets and aerosols that transm it Covid-19.

    If Anne MCcloskey has indeed been opposing the wearing of masks swhe deserves all the opprobrium heaped on her.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And those that defend/support her equally so

      Delete
    2. Barry - she is wholly entitled to oppose the wearing of masks. It does not make her opinion right. I think she is wrong. The opprobrium might have more purpose and effect if directed not against those who support wearing masks or those who oppose them, but against those who don't want an opinion expressed other than their own. I am just in the door having been masked for the best part of two hours. I think I did the right thing and that the bulk of the evidence is with me (but certainly not all of it). If Dr McCloskey was leading a crowd of people not wearing masks onto the streets, then I would go for your opprobrium argument. I am not aware that she has or has advocated such.

      Delete
  4. Barry,
    I'm not arguing against masks just hysteria and stigma. Legal requirements should only be followed if the make sense to you and don't go against your principles otherwise what are you, but a law abiding robot.
    As I said everything been said but again saying scarves around faces prevent the aerosol movement of protein shells whose whole genetic information is to find a host is simply not true. The benefits are minimal, if any.
    I've read numerous medical journals on this as well as decade old BBC documentary on SARS and the effectiveness of masks is heavily questioned. It's seems more political to me.
    Why do people deserve harassment for an opinion?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. David - we all get harassed for the opinions we hold - usually by people with different opinions. I guess it goes with the turf. Should we be visited by the police? Not in the slightest.

      Delete
    2. David

      earlier this year I read 'The Butchering Art: Joseph Lister's Quest to Transform the Grisly World of Victorian Medicine' by Lindsey Fitzharris

      In the middle of the 19th century Germ Theory was considered 'Fake News'
      It took decades for Lister's work to become universally accepted

      The situation with droplet borne infection and opposition to mask wearing is somewhat similar to opposition to, and early derision of, Lister's proposals on hygiene
      Though mask benefits are not universally accepted just yet, there is a general consensus on their utility

      Proposing that people ought not go against their 'principles' is reckless
      Especially so when the greater evidence seems to suggest benefits ... benefits no matter how minimal ought not be discounted

      In the final analysis ... we're all in certain contexts law abiding robots ... we robotically stop on red and go on green
      We accept the norms and laws about which side of the road we drive on ... we just can't follow our feckin preference ... no matter how 'Pincipled' we might consider our position to be

      Anyone promulgating for a 'whatever your having yourself attitude' in these matters, including yourself, Dixie and Dr McCloskey needs to be challenged & censured

      Challenged & censured
      And those persisting with such irrationalities feckin sectioned

      Delete
    3. HJ - I don't feel Dixie or Dr McCloskey are arguing a whatever you are having yourself attitude. That would be like drive on whatever side of the road you want. There is a clear distinction between believing you should be able to drive on whatever side you want and doing it. From what I can see both abide by the regulations and do not incite people to do otherwise. Incitement to think is no bad thing.

      Delete
    4. AM

      I don't know if Fírinne drives or even wants to
      Lets suppose though she does and a neighbour tells her that she can drive on any side of the road she chooses to

      Would you defend that neighbour's right to urge people to drive on whatever side they choose?

      No doubt Fírinne would disregard this foolish advice

      However lets suppose there are other more vulnerable people who support this neighbour's ideas
      None of whom may actually follow through on that person's advice
      But instead just become resentful
      And go around whinging about having to drive on the left

      Would you not allow for that neighbour to be challenged?
      Would you not understand the concerns of those that wish this clown censured or sectioned?

      Delete
    5. HJ - therein lies your problem. You seem to confuse an opinion about something with urging others to follow through on that opinion. I can have an opinion that the law is wrong without arguing for the law to be breached. I am not aware that either Dixie or Ann McCloskey urged anybody to do anything. They both expressed reservations about aspects of the current method of dealing with the problem. We need more robust testing of government rather than less.
      Nor should we use vulnerable people as a means to suppress opinion. That can be applied to every situation - "let's not discuss something because it might annoy or offend the vulnerable." We would have no discussion about issues such as transgender or physician assisted dying. In my view all these things are in need of further discussion.
      I do allow for anyone to be challenged. This is the point. I allow for Dixie to be challenged but also allow for him to challenge. It is not the concept of challenge you are opposed to, just who is being challenged. You seem not to want the government challenged. Understanding the concerns of those who want people who disagree with them sectioned leads to an understanding that this was an old Soviet tactic employed for the purposes of expressing dissent.

      Delete
    6. "There is a clear distinction between believing you should be able to drive on whatever side you want and doing it"

      That's an obtuse rather than a clear distinction

      Neither Dixie nor Dr McCloskey may be explicitly urging people not to wear masks but if you were to do a straw poll, I'd bet the vast majority of reasonable people would agree with the implicit understanding I'm addressing and replying to

      I have no major problem with the government being challenged
      But challenging them on mask wearing and enforcement of same is unlikely to be sustainable

      It'll be a number of years after exiting this crisis before a proper evaluation can be made
      In the meantime, citizens need to accept their responsibilities too
      One way or another there's a lot of education on the nature of contagion that needs to happen

      If that takes re-education camps then so be it

      Delete
    7. AM

      they have every right to criticise
      But in their criticism they are obliged to forward viable alternatives ... otherwise its just more noise

      Yeah, the government is flawed
      But flawed as compared to whom
      Where lies the culturally comparable solution?
      Where's the alternative government should we find a way to have an election?
      (The answer to that question just might be scarier than the Covid. Though in all likelihood the outcome of an election would just be more of the same, Hence my preference to do the best we can with what we've got)

      Delete
    8. HJ - they are not obliged to put forward anything. Critic's prerogative. It would be better if they did but there is no obligation on them to do so. Critique and dissent from government edict is a valid position to take.
      A flawed position does not have to be judged by something else other than in terms of how relatively flawed it is. Rape being less brutal than murder is not how we judge the crime. The act in and of itself is enough to invite critical comment and opposition.
      There is absolutely nothing wrong with your preference to do the best we can with what we have got. That is my own position. The difference is I don't want people like Dixie, Ann McCloskey or Ciara Kelly sent to the camps for having a different opinion.
      One of the reasons we find opposition to what is probably the best option available is the draconian demands of some for measures like camps and psychiatric wards to be used against those who merely express a different opinion.

      Delete
  5. If masks are harmless then why have 'exemptions'? D'oh! Morons that wanna wear them can fill their boots but don't be dictating to others.

    ReplyDelete
  6. AM
    I agree. It's a bit silly to me. I disagreed with yourself plenty of times but I always come away a bit wiser. Same with Henry Joy although I think he can be a bit condescending. I have to remind myself that myself and Barry were brought up different and have different personalities, at times he strikes me as somebody who knows the answer before he's heard the question.
    People of opposing arguments usually have a point. I don't see the point in belittling

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. HJ - I imagine the distinction is much more clear than the often obtuse fumbling government response. To think - to do. If people can't understand it, maybe it is a case of what was never reasoned in will never be reasoned out.
      But I think the vast majority of people, reasonable or not, know the distinction.
      The challenge to the government's opinion on wearing masks is as sustainable as long as people feel they are not a useful preventative measure.
      Anne and Dixie do accept their responsibilities, one of which is not to have a citizen's opinion silenced in the interests of what they see as flawed government. It is not their responsibility to nod their head in response to every government edict.
      Implicit in your comment is that no proper evaluation has been made and you want people sent to the camps on the basis of questioning something that has not been properly evaluated.
      This is perhaps one reason people speak out - they see in it a road to the camp, the terminus of all totalitarian systems.

      Delete
  7. Henry Joy,
    Few good points. You're attitude seems hysterical to me. Calling on military and sectioning people is wanting an authoritarian state, as I see it.
    Human nature is what it is, the majority of people are in no danger from this, so will act accordingly. All the challenging and blaming won't chance that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. David

      a little bit of exaggeration on my behalf
      Its just part of a provocative debating style

      If the state formulates and articulates a clear plan where life for those least vulnerable can return to the old way and where the elderly & vulnerable must isolate then I could probably roll with that

      In the meantime as a citizen I'll honour the social contract, go with the existing plan and support enforced compliance

      Delete
  8. Henry,
    I'm all for a social contract. People like the authors of the great Barrington declaration should be part of any discussion that precedes any social contract.
    When you talk about such levels of enforcement I'm out. I can remember as a kid, peelers kicking in my Mother's door looking for Uncles they weren't there, the insults. We all know theses experiences, why would you give instruments of the state carte blanche over peoples lives, you know how some of them will act.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. David

      however a solution plays out its highly unlikely that a 'carrot only' approach will work
      It in all likelihood will require some 'stick' too

      (The debate in the science community must include all reasonable positions. The Barrington crew though didn't do themselves any favours in not disclosing some of their funders, it was more than remiss of them not to have disclosed funding from airline companies. Scientists can be influenced & bought too)

      Delete
    2. HJ - all governing requires a stick - good government relies more on consent than coercion. But if you break a red light coercion will be employed. It won't be employed if you say red lights are not a good idea. You can put your case and face the criticism. As Ken Livingstone once wrote: "Spontaneous Laughter is often more politically revealing than any number of sanctimonious newspaper columns and political debates."
      Let alternative ideas bloom and rejection of them contend, to paraphrase a well worn observation.

      Delete
  9. Henry,
    I'm all for financial disclosure. Preferably balanced for example when people point out Patrick Vallance's past backers they're dismissed as conspiracy theorists.
    The stick always exists. You go to prison if you break the law so on so forth. What you're advocating is imprisonment for wrong thoughts. That's scarier than covid.

    ReplyDelete

  10. This isn't the Ireland of Pearse or Connolly. It is the Ireland of Varadkar and Martin. O'Neill and Foster. With the little parties all wanting a slice of the pie.



    Isn't that the truth. That same point that Dixie made was made in podcast in Japan last week from a very well respected researcher.


    Quillers wake up and get with the program, do your own research and you will find out very quickly that the masks are a complete waste of time because they don't work on the level they tell you...

    You are being lied to and it is a very big lie. Bat flu doesn't exist and there isn't one person who can link me direct source material for the isolated gene. Simply because they can't. The PCR test is a scam...

    Google these words..."The great re-set" and start reading the material by the World Economic Forum. Or check out a comic by the EU called 'Infected'...

    Or you can simply believe who ever is reading from a script that wears an Armani suit every night at 6pm..

    Start researching the truth for yourselves...

    ReplyDelete