Our Twitter team received a report today from @AnonymousTibet that an English psychologist, Susan Mitchie; a key advisor to the British Government on manipulating and influencing public behavior, has jointly authored a paper (published by the University College London) which advocates children being injected, with what in truth is an unlicensed and experimental genetically modified product. The mid and long term health impacts of these drugs are unknown, while the worrying numbers of adverse health damage, and fatalities following current injections is being ignored and unexamined by governments, public health bodies and media.
None of this seems to bother Ms Mitchie, a card-carrying member of the Communist Party and admirer of the Chinese Regime.
Image: original Scot-NHS/re-egineered by @tibettruth
The world’s insatiable appetite for PPE as a stated precaution against infection from viruses has lead to a range of issues, not least the environmental impact of untold numbers of discarded masks. The panic (or calculation) of governments to shroud their health-workers and general citizenry in masks, gowns and gloves has also made a number of businesses very, very rich. Including some based in China (where as the world knows very well, employment and human rights are non-existent).
Image: original cloudfront.net/augmented by @tibettruth
But those realities have not prevented countries such as the United Kingdom from engaging in a number of shadowy deals to procure medical equipment, that often times has proved to be dangerously ineffective and required withdrawal, so much for cautious management of public expenditure! We see a report today from, ‘The New European’ (an English online journal) that the British have paid the equivalent of $125 million to a Chinese corporation that uses a hotel room in downtown Beijing as its offices!
The Beijing Union Glory Investment Company, like many such corporations operates closely with, and no doubt invested by the Chinese regime. An authority that inflicts genocidal policies against the Tibetan and Uyghur peoples. Such however is the crazed momentum for PPE the British Department for Health (with the knowledge and support of England’s version of the State Department) ignored entirely the harrowing misery suffered across Tibet and East Turkistan. Yet in only January this year the British Secretary for Foreign Affairs, Dominic Raab announced in Parliament that UK companies would face fines if they could not show that their products or supply chains were free from any association with forced labor in so-called Xinjiang.
Image: original courthousenews/augmented by @tibettruth
It is, of course, a matter of fact that the region is a huge producer of cotton and it has become increasingly apparent and well documented that slave-labor is used in that production.Which returns us to the subject of medical protective clothing and equipment. Did the British not realize that a major component used in the manufacturing of such products is cotton? Surely either Matt Hancock or Dominic Raab stop to consider where the source of a government backed Chinese company would source their materials from when producing PPE items? Maybe they asked the Chinese where the cotton used in such items was from? If so they would take credulity to a whole new level if believing any refutation that the cotton content was not from the very region cited by the UK authorities for housing forced-labor camps!
We hope any of our UK friends and readers will seek a freedom-of-information disclose from the British ministries of health and foreign affairs on this issue. As it stands the government in Britain looks to be in violation of its own foreign and trading policies with respect to the importation of goods linked to forced labor. Is this how the British seek to tackle human rights abuses in so-called Xinjiang?
Of course in truth it doesn’t give a damn about the condition of Uyghurs enslaved and exploited to produce and process cotton, most likely a core component of the PPE bought by the UK government. Nor is it troubled that its people will be wearing equipment made in the traumatizing misery of China’s concentration camps.
Greetings to our friends and subscribers in the UK. Today we launch our online lobby supporting Tibet.With a few taps and swipes of your device you can ensure that your MP is made aware of Tibet’s status as an independent nation under an illegal occupation. There’s also an important question on Tibet included which asks your political representative to present to the head of Foreign Affairs.
Online activists Anonymous Tibet have published a video challenging UK politicians to speak-out on Tibet with the same urgency and condemnation currently expressed on the plight of Uyghurs under Chinese rule. Our thanks to @AnonymousTibet for sharing news on this.
Police detain a protester after spraying pepper spray during a protest in Causeway Bay before the annual handover march in Hong Kong, Wednesday, July. 1, 2020.
Image: AP/Himalayan Times
Well the inevitable has arrived and the goal of China’s regime, to extend its cancerous control over Hong Kong, realized. Defended by what that fetid authority claims as ‘law’. According to declarations from Beijing it ‘s now a criminal offense to show any sign of dissent against the Chinese authorities. Opposition to the dark excesses of Xi Jinping’s dictatorship is met with a range of vicious and oppressive punishments.
Torture, executions, forced-labor and disappearances are the incoming abnormal for Hong Kong, a grim and dangerous future awaits. One that was entirely predictable and known to those British politicians and civil servants who in signing their 1984 agreement with China cruelly and cynically betrayed the citizens of Hong Kong.
What is blatantly clear is that the British in their early talks with Deng Xiaoping’s regime told ithemselves that it was possible to keep control and influence over Hong Kong. That position soon crumbled and Margaret Thatcher and her advisors adopted a strategy of prioritizing UK financial interests in the region. The assurances on protecting freedoms, democracy and autonomy were always destined to be little more than posturing, diplomatic face-saving for the British. After all in their over a century of rule in Hong Kong they had done almost nothing to build genuine democratic rights and infrastructure. It was a colonial occupation.
Image: Courtesy of CNN
The platitudes offered by Britain on its treaty obligations to ensure civil and political freedom for Hong Kong’s citizens are exposed when measured against the economic determination of several UK governments to secure lucrative trade relations with China. That remains the policy of Boris Johnson and his advisors. Even as protestors today took to the streets in Hong Kong to oppose the tyrannical law imposed by Beijing the focus of British foreign policy consultants is securing profits from the Chinese.
In truth, like the State Department, the British Foreign Office and political establishment have long known about the odious excesses of China’s regime. Just like they knew in their negotiations on Hong Kong that they were consigning its people to the bloody maw of Chinese rule. We see reports today that one or two members of the British authorities have spoken in their Parliament of their concerns about Uyghur women being forcibly sterilized on order of the Chinese authorities.
This is political opportunism, not a legitimate commitment to human rights. We say this because as part of activism over the years our network worked tirelessly to tell governments including that of the UK of China’s mass forced sterilization campaigns. Yet despite detailed documents and reports on the issue made available to political representatives in England, no action was taken. Indeed those women whose lives had been viciously traumatized by China’s forced sterilization policies were ignored, while the very same foreign relations advisors who counseled the UK government on Hong Kong remained tight-lipped. Fully aware of the atrocities but more concerned with encouraging and maintaining commercial relations with the Chinese tyranny.
A similar duplicity and appeasement contributed to the failed treaty on Hong Kong, there was never any genuine commitment to protecting citizens rights there. The emphasis was upon securing long-established British economic interest in the region It was with that in mind that Margaret Thatcher and her negotiating advisors signed up to the empty promises agreed by China.
Image: courtesy of CNN
It was from the beginning a treachery forged from financial interests, with a final tragic and unavoidable conclusion. Those architects of the Sino-British Joint Declaration knew damn well what the outcome would be, but it was not the fate of Hong Kong’s people which troubled them. Rather protecting British political, diplomatic and economic interests!
“The UK signed an internationally binding legal agreement in 1984 that enshrines the one country two systems rule, enshrines the basic freedoms of the people of Hong Kong and we stand four square behind that agreement, four square behind the people of Hong Kong…There will be serious consequences if that internationally binding legal agreement were not to be honoured.”. (Source BBC TV)
Wonder what his Chinese partner thinks of such a response? Lucia Hunt, born in Xian China we can only presume she has been given clearance by the English security services? Is she perhaps discretely monitored? After all as the case with Huawei has revealed the Chinese regime is actively engaged in a spying and propaganda war, stealing commercial, industrial information, influencing politicians and media.
China-friendly English Foreign Secretary, Jeremy Hunt with his Chinese partner, Lucia.
Image: cdn4
Not that Jeremy Hunt, his government colleagues or Conservative party are unduly concerned, far too busy appeasing China in the greed-driven scramble to secure deals. Taken the craven and servile policy on China adopted by the Foreign Office (not so different to that of the State Department). Hunt’s assurances on standing with Hong Kong should be taken with an ocean of salt. After all was it not another Conservative government headed then by Margaret Thatcher which betrayed the people of Hong Kong. Having been bullied and dictated to by China into signing a dangerously compromised treaty on the status of the island, they turned their backs upon Hong Kong’s plight. Just as UK governments have consistently done with Tibet.
Image: mediapri
Since then successive UK authorities have remained largely silent on the increasing erosion of rights supposedly enshrined by the ‘international legal agreement’ on Hong Kong.
The basic truth remains that states such as the UK are preoccupied with maintaining and securing trade arrangements with China, the plight of Tibet, Hong Kong, East Turkistan, Southern Mongolia, Manchuria, and that of Chinese people is of little importance. Their suffering and denial of basic freedoms is responded too with hand-wringing platitudes and cosmetic gestures. With that in mind just what does Jeremy Hunt mean by ‘serious consequences’ and from whom?
Across the water in a land where its government is often heard to boast of traditions of democracy and human-rights something is very rotten.
This week a Minister of the UK authorities, Gavin Williamson, wassummararilly dismissed from his post by Theresa May, the reason you may wonder?Well, there had been a leak of information to the media from a security star chamber called the National Security Council (NSC). This gathering is attended by Ministers, heads of MI6,GCHQ,MI5 and counter-terrorism police, they are all bound by what’s termed the Official Secrets Act. Which is effectively a state gagging order, violation of which is punishable as a crime.
A rapidly assembled inquiry was launched and within a couple of days the Prime Minister had laidresponsibility for the disclosure at the door of Mr Williamson. He had it was claimedbreached the security protocols and convention of supreme confidentiality under which the NSCoperates. What’s more there wastalk of him being open to prosecution. As it stands hecontinuesto vigorously denysuchcharges and has called for an inquiry into the affair.
Image:wsj
What would be revealed if such an investigation was allowed to delve into events which lead to the release of press reports that Theresa May was considering allowing controversial Chinese communications and tech corporation Huawei a contract in constructing a 5G network within the UK?
In all probabilitysuch an examination is not likely as there may well be too many politically sensitive skeletons rattling around, which could prove damagingly embarrassing to the Prime Minister’s government and her Conservative Party. There’s already an indication that the matter is being slammed down with yesterday’s announcement by the Metropolitan Police thatthe disclosure did not constitute a criminal offence, Nor it was claimeddid the informationreleasedbreach the Official Secrets Act.
The UK political establishment operates a policy of active appeasement towards the Chinese regime. indicated here as the British equivalent of the White House is decorated to celebrate the Spring New Year
Image:cgtn
“I am satisfied that what was disclosed did not contain information that would breach the Official Secrets Act,”said Neil Basu, head of the Met’s specialist operations. “I have considered all the information available to me andI have takenlegal advice.I am satisfied that the disclosure did not amount to a criminal offence either under the Official Secrets Act (OSA) or misconduct in a public office. No crime has been committed and this is not a matter for the police.”(Source: The Guardian 5/4/2019)
John Browne, formerly Lead Non-Executive Director of David Cameron’s Conservative Government, now Chair at Huawei UK
Image: standford.edu
This statementraises an interesting possible legal defense for future whistle-blowers who couldargue that it‘s not the action itself which defines if the OSA has been breached but the nature of information. From the government‘s perspective it does something more important, eliminates the risk of exposure within a court, it also returns complete control to them. Who can now bury this controversy deeply away from what could be dangerous further scrutiny. Before exploring further some interesting connections between the UK government, former Ministers and officials with Huawei let‘s change the focus.
Andrew Cahn, formerly headed David Cameron’s Conservative Government on UK Trade & Investment. SInce 2011 a Non-Executive Director of Huawei Technologies UK
Image: dailymail
While the UK government struggles to justify it’s reported approval of allowingHuawei to engineer the 5G network across Britain, or reassure its allies that any potential security risk can be contained the Chinese corporation is a key facilitator in the oppression of the Tibetan people. Not that the political establishment in London extends any substantial concern towards the plight of Tibet, especially when engaged in lucrative commercial partnerships with Chinese corporations!
Yet if they bothered to carefully assess the role of Huawei in occupied Tibet they would soon realize that its insistence on being an independent business, not influenced or constrained by China’s regimeis palpable nonsense. Like all major corporations within China Huawei is deeply and actively enmeshed with the political machinery of the Chinese state, without the sanction of the authorities it would not exist. It cannot operate without the approval of Xi Jinping and his regime. We are not though talking of a well intentioned company that happens to be under the control of China’s totalitarian tyranny, Huaweiis an engaged player, fully subscribed to the extreme politicalideology which aims to expand Chinese political, military and national interests.
John Suffolk, formerly Chief Information Officer for David Cameron’s Conservative Government. Now Senior Vice President and the Global Cyber Security & Privacy Officer for Huawei
Image: desibelajans
This is shown by its suffocating presence in Tibet where it has been constructing a range of communication and security networks, the purpose of which is to monitor Tibetans, intruding into every aspect of their daily living.Establishing an extensive CCTV coverage, creating facial recognition systems and security barriers at Tibetan monasteries and other public locations.Working in collusion with other Chinese communication providers it has engineered a surveillance network which monitors social-media and telephone systems to identity any dissent against China’s regime.
Image:tibetfr
In this regardit is partnering in the repressive assault against Tibetan cultural and national identity, a collaboration which should be of serious concern to governments, including of that of the United Kingdom, which claim to place the highest value upon human rights and freedoms. Yet it‘sinterest is directed towards strengtheningties with Huawei, even to the extent of jeopardizing security alliances with the USA and other countries.
The prospect of trade and the significant profits which flow from collaborating with the Chinese technology giant are presented as being in the interest of the nation, enablingeconomic and performance benefits fron the latest network platform. Such claims, of course, are open to debate and should be measured against handing over control of communications infrastructure to an arm of the Chinese state.
Facial recognition systems are being rolled out across China and occupied lands such as Tibet and East Turkistan.
Image:scmp
While the advantages of 5G are promoted as offering a digital revolution such technology also affords a totalitarian state disturbing levels of increased social control and surveillance. That is already happening within China, facilitated by Huawei, while there are now three 5G base-stations operating inside occupied Tibet. One, at the LhasaPost and Telecommunications School, the other two are installed at the office of the TibetPost Group in Lhasa, and in China Mobile’s Tibet branch building.
Image: archivenet
It‘s said that power corrupts, in realityitprobably reveals an inherent capacity for venality, is such self-interest at the heart of this controversy? Have prominent figures linked to the UK Government and Conservative Party profited from Huawei? Was it coincidental that fairly senior people associated with former Prime Minister David Cameron’s administration were offered and accepted prominent executive positions onto the board of HuaweiUK? Clearly finance has dominated the scene since Huawei promised in 2012 that it would be investing £1.3 billion in the British economy.!
Whatever the facts, which look set to be confined indefinitely to the archives, in defending its partnership with Huawei and risking the integrity of its communications network and national security the UK authorities are collaborating with a corporation which is enabling the violent oppression and 24/7 surveillance of the Tibetan people!
Use of this video is for educational purposes, information and fair use. We are happy to declare this disturbing demonstration of appeasement is copyright of UK Government.
What’s going down with England’s Prime Minister? Hasn’t she got enough to contend with, trying to square the tortuous circle of exiting the European Union? Well looks like Mrs May has time enough to grovel before the Chinese regime in a nausea inducing video released today by her office. Desperate for business at any cost or humiliation, maybe next time her advisors will let her know there’s no such thing as Chinese New Year, as in China it’s called Spring Festival!
