20 Comments

If anything good came out of the mess that was the pandemic, it's that the globalist agenda became more obvious to many of us. A still small (but significant) minority of people have been red-pilled and people like Norman Fenton are leading the way. Excellent interview!

Expand full comment

Norman Fenton will be remembered as a genuine hero, courage is so rare today.

Expand full comment

Interesting that Norman says he and his colleagues were kicked out of the Turing Institute…

Adrian Smith is the Turing Institute Director and Chief Executive.

Adrian Smith is also the President of the Royal Society, which in October 2020 published its COVID-19 vaccine deployment: Behaviour, ethics, misinformation and policy strategies report: https://royalsociety.org/-/media/policy/projects/set-c/set-c-vaccine-deployment.pdf

This Royal Society and British Academy sponsored report supported the deployment of fast-tracked and still experimental 'COVID-19' vaccine products, and called for dissent about these vaccine products to be suppressed, even calling for criminal prosecutions for 'spreading misinformation'. But who defines what is 'misinformation'?

The COVID-19 vaccine deployment report called for oppressive action against people questioning COVID-19 vaccination policy, but failed to disclose that both the Royal Society and British Academy are seriously conflicted in this matter via their funding.

See my emails on this matter:

- Failure to disclose conflicts of interest - COVID-19 vaccine deployment report - Royal Society and British Academy, 4 December 2020: https://vaccinationispolitical.files.wordpress.com/2020/12/failure-to-disclose-conflicts-of-interest-covid-19.pdf

- The vast conflicted network influencing coronavirus vaccination policy, 20 December 2020: https://vaccinationispolitical.files.wordpress.com/2020/12/the-vast-conflicted-network-influencing-coronavirus-vaccination-policy.pdf

Expand full comment

Elizabeth: yes all of that is true, but I don't believe Adrian Smith was directly involved in the decision to terminate the Fellowships of myself and other members of my research group. I believe there were people at levels below that who made these decisions.

Expand full comment

Norman, it’s a pretty big deal to ‘kick out’ a Fellow of an Institute I would say…

The Alan Turing Institute is the national institute for data science and artificial intelligence, and you and your colleagues have been ‘kicked out’.

As Institute Director and Chief Executive, Adrian Smith is responsible for what happened to you, this is a bitter blow to your reputation and for your colleagues.

Exactly on what basis did you get ‘kicked out’, can you please share the background?

Expand full comment

All the Queen Mary Fellows (I believe there were about 35 in total at the time) were asked in summer of 2021 to provide a statement if they wanted their fellowships renewed. Note that up until end of 2020 I had actually been the Deputy Chair of the QM Group responsible for liaison with Turing. At the same time others could apply as QM was to have an increased allocation of about 45. Of the 6 Fellows in my research group 5 of us provided statements (one did not wish to continue the Fellowship). In total something like 55 people applied for the 45 Fellowships. Despite all 5 of us being easily among the most qualified for these Fellowships every one of us was in the small subset of applicants who was rejected (and I do not know of any other existing Fellow who was rejected). It was a Queen Mary panel that made the recommendations to Turing and I understand that some changes/additions were made by Turing (I have no idea if any of us 5 were discussed in those decisions). When we individually asked for feedback from the Chair of the QM panel we were each told something like 'it was not a deliberate attempt to exclude our group' and that 'we did not make sufficiently strong statements with respect to equality/diversity or mentoring etc'.

Expand full comment

Thanks Norman.

So you say: “Despite all 5 of us being easily among the most qualified for these Fellowships every one of us was in the small subset of applicants who was rejected (and I do not know of any other existing Fellow who was rejected).”

And the basic excuse for your exclusion is that 'we did not make sufficiently strong statements with respect to equality/diversity or mentoring etc'.

This seems a pretty weak excuse given your experience.

Seems to me that you’ve been ‘Wakefielded’…

You’re threatening the Church of Vaccination, so you’re being cancelled.

Expand full comment

There is indeed a very low probability that we would all have been among the rejected subset if there was no systemic explanation like the simple fact I was being Wakefielded over my public stance on the covid narrative.

Expand full comment

This has been going on for years Norman, shutting down dissent about vaccination policy and practice.

And here we are, with ever-increasing vaccination schedules, which are steeped in conflicts of interest, reaching a crescendo with the Covid debacle.

Have you had a chance to look at the Royal Society’s and British Academy’s COVID-19 vaccine deployment report? https://royalsociety.org/-/media/policy/projects/set-c/set-c-vaccine-deployment.pdf

What do you think about the tone?

See Appendix 4 to see who was involved with the preparation of the report.

Expand full comment

All UK commonwealth is 100% pedophilia,

What else would you expect

The ROYALs begat COVD to take pedo-prince off the news, the royal society knew the marching orders

If anything covid left only sheep at the helm of UK big science

https://bilbobitch.substack.com/p/grand-covid-conspiracy-theory-finally

Expand full comment

Next ? Earth Evaporation era ?? Climate atomisation ? The unmitigated audacity in broad daylight . They must be having a good laugh at us

Expand full comment

Clouds and rainfall cool the oceans and land masses. Clouds block solar radiation.

Expand full comment

I thought this was not a good talk. It was full of fighting talk but virtually no statistics or data to back up what was essentially a rant.

Expand full comment

sound disappear at 30 minutes?

Expand full comment
author

We checked. Should be OK. Try reloading.

Expand full comment

Increasing stress on society is resulting in a shift towards autocracy. People desire a strong leader who will tell them what to think (thinking is hard). I think Norman overestimates evil and underestimates stupidity, in the changes we see in society. In the UK, four scientists who put out scientific evidence that a serial killer nurse is actually quite likely not a serial killer at all, are also being cancelled. Uniformed Dutch police came to my house in the night, at the request of UK police, telling me to take my blog offline, in which I give the scientific arguments that Lucy Letby is innocent. Yes: we are living in the endarkenment. A time of rise of the power of stupidity and of the strengthening of the oligarchs.

Expand full comment

Strange that you think that uniformed Dutch police - at the request of UK police - telling you (not asking you, I note) to take your blog offline is a symptom of stupidity and not of evil. Whatever your opinion of Lucy Letby (and I have none because I have not been following the case) it would seem pretty evil to deny someone a defence however guilty they might be. I thought that was one of the principles of democratic law: 'You have a right etc...' Denying the right for someone to express an opinion is symptomatic of something far more insidious than stupidity. I don't agree with you at all with your post below this but acknowledge that you have every right to express your opinion. Peace.

Expand full comment
Aug 25, 2023·edited Aug 25, 2023

Peace to you, too! Well, the police are doing their job. They *are* stupid. Their excuse was already that it was the public prosecution service which decided that the evidence that they had found, doing what they are supposed to do, was good enough to put before a jury. "Just following orders". Reminds me of "Befehl ist Befehl". This is the banality of evil, to speak with Hannah Arendt. This is neo-fascism. So stupid that they cannot see that what they are doing is evil. Let's agree that what they did is *wrong*, and they are *wrong* not to stand up and apologise. Incidentally, I told the story to some of my English family, and my wife was there, and said "this is fascism". My brother and sister-in-law said "oh no, you must not use that word, because if you do, nobody will believe you". I won't tell you what my wife said to me privately, later. She quoted Orwell on English fascism. You would not recognise it as fascism, it would be oh so English...

Expand full comment

Thanks for the reply. I guess we'll end up splitting hairs since I pretty much agree with you about the 'F' word but not so much about stupidity vs evil. In the UK what pisses me off more than anything is wilful ignorance. The idleness of not bothering to find out what the truth may be. Unless you are mentally handicapped in some way I submit stupidity is a choice which, even though it shouldn't be a defence, gets people off the hook time and time again: 'they didn't know what they were doing.' And, as far as I'm concerned, choosing to be stupid (i.e. idle) is the precursor of evil. Even a small child knows when he/she is being cruel to a defenceless animal (or indeed another child) however much they deny it. And, although I agree with you about the police being stupid, it's because they choose to be. They also know when they are inflicting pain, mental or physical. What is exercising uncontrolled power? Is that stupid or is that evil? You write that people want to be told what to think: that is idle which leads to stupidity which leads to evil. Teaching at tertiary level in the UK for periods when I wasn't practising my first love/trade I observed very much how stupidity is a choice. I wish you a very good day Richard.

Expand full comment

The sea level may be predicted to rise by a tiny number of inches. The important thing is that the uncertainty in that number has risen. The climate has become more *unstable*. That is what we are seeing. That was also the actual prediction. The volatility, the predictionability has increased. The problem is that there are too many humans on the planet. But that problem is going to be solved by natural processes. War, pestilence, famine, ... the four riders of the apocalypse.

Expand full comment