Published On: Thu, May 14th, 2020

The coronavirus police state (4): pushing back against the business shutdown and loan racket

The reality that UK Government asserts out of London via its controlled corporate-media is not the same thing as reality on the ground in the country. People are voting on lockdown with their feet. The fact that healthy people in streets and in parks were ruining the image of a country (supposedly) decimated by disease is why UK Government has been running to catch up, and to “ease the lockdown”, as it styles the modest amendments to its Coronavirus Restrictions Regulations (CRR).

In short: the attempt by UK Government to keep people in their homes for the optics has been beaten – and resoundingly so.  This is why it has had to amend the CRR to allow unlimited access to the outdoors – as if it had a power to deny this in the first place. It’s the pathetic act of a defeated regime.

What is required now is to have small-to-medium business open up in defiance of the CRR, and for the people to make sure they are supported (corporations can fend for themselves, and corporations who have collaborated with UK Government can go to hell). This support should extend to assistance in defence of any punitive measures taken against businesses which dare to defy the attempt by UK Government to put them out of business.

For let us not be coy in understanding or stating the criminal activity that UK Government has overtly been engaged in. Indeed, the author is delighted to say that the UK Government’s gangsterism has been understood and recognised hereabouts from the very outset of the Covid-19 hoax (see the articles The UK Government’s £330 billion coronavirus racket (here), and The Queen is at economic war with the British people (here).  What else to call it but racketeering when an organisation that could deploy armed force if it so wished issues an edict whereby a business must close down, and so that closure becomes coercion to obtain loans to pay for operational costs that can’t be suspended.

A business that doesn’t cease to operate as ordered by the CRR is committing an offence under the regulations.  Now, a good business owner won’t need FBEL to make him aware of those regulations, and what constitutes an offence. All that this site can do is to convey the information that the regulations 4 and 5 (here and here – but please be aware of amendments), which are the pertinent ones, are as legally dubious as are all the others covered in the previous parts of this series, because they are also a constituent of the “special restriction or requirement”, stipulated in the section, 45C , of the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984, that is only imposable by a magistrate.

If the author owned a business by which he could test the legislation, then he would certainly defy the CRR. Any fine would, firstly, remain unpaid, and challenged in court. Indeed, because the CRR states that “a director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate” (appertaining to a business) can be “prosecuted and proceeded against and punished accordingly”, and implies that warrantless arrest is an option for the authorities acting in the name of maintaining “public health” and “public order”, the author would still run the risk and, again, defend himself against the racketeering in a court.

Most of us, perhaps, are not in a position to get into the arena as far as regulations 4 and 5 are concerned. However, as mentioned above, we can support local business that want to open up to people who are capable of making an adult decision about the risks of a so-called disease (i.e. businesses that don’t enforce social distancing measures, which are, after all, merely guidelines‡). As mentioned above, we might like to stop doing business with corporations that have collaborated in the Covid-19 hoax, and especially boycott the “target supermarket”, which is Sainsburys (as per the FBEL article) as a matter of simple retribution and to telegraph a message that the little man has power.

Other things: do not suffer to be “contact traced”. Do not suffer to be tested. Do not suffer to be vaccinated. When coming across them in a business setting, challenge with the science (i.e. Covid-19 as SARS-COV binding with ACE2, and the negligible amount of times it has happened to make people seriously ill) the necessity of measures intended to control behaviour.

Furthermore, people who are liable to pay a full amount of council tax might at last consider not paying it. If the reader has submitted an application to their local authority for a benefit due to a loss of income, then yours truly is not going to be judgemental – after all, it equates to less tax revenue for that council. However, be aware that any refusal to pay tax thereafter may be hampered by the local authority being in possession of any employment details such as may have been previously necessary to submit for any reason whatsoever. Local authorities are immune to data protection legislation, and can abuse data in its possession to issue an attachment order on a salary†. It is the author’s conviction that if everyone came across this matter of day-to-day gross injustice (rather than being encouraged into redirected behaviour by British alternative media: e.g. being made to worry about the likes of Julian Assange) there would be an atmosphere in the country that UK Government would be very afraid of.

Indeed, it really should be the case that a significantly hostile environment for UK Government could emerge in 2020. The Covid-19 hoax must teach a huge number, if not a majority of people in Britain that a system whereby decent law abiding people are always prone to being economic prey, by being turned into a particular sort of suspect because of an emergency by the UK Government’s own definition, is in no way a desirable one. A suitable expression of what ultimately needs to be done in answer to the heinous crime perpetrated in these past few months by UK Government, and to begin to create assurance against the potential for any future abuse,  featured in the recent FBEL article, Covid-19 hoax can’t survive people’s experience of it; anger must be channelled towards ending government-by-hoax

…the free people of Britain should be expecting punishment for the criminal acts of economic vandalism caused by Boris Johnson, his Cabinet, their scientific retinue, the Parliament, the Queen, key collaborators in the NHS, the police, and in local government. Of course, the chances of this happening in a system that is so heavily stacked against the individual (who is supposed to be sovereign) are very low to none.

And this is why those individuals who would be sovereign must now come to terms, if before they could or would not, that the system is in need of overthrow as a matter of basic survival. Exploring (non violent [meaning, violence will not be initiated, but is justified in self-defence]) ways to it is what FBEL is fundamentally concerned with. There must be an end to Parliament’s claim to be sovereign, a re-consigning of the Crown to the trash can, a re-alignment and purge of the court system, the end of police as militia (with a real thing re-established with the one purpose of defending the people from the State) – and much more.

The aforementioned “fundamental concern” has generated a number of articles at this place, two of which would serve very well as being introductory on the topic: Not paying, Part One: Remember no taxation without representation? It’s making a comeback (here), and, So, the British Government is entirely corrupt. What happens next? (here).

Previously: The coronavirus police state (3): Gathering, and gatekeeping (link).

Next: The coronavirus police state (5): the wear-a-mask-to-shop deception (link).


‡ From here:

Fresh guidelines issued by the College of Policing and the National Police Chiefs’ Council urges officers to only enforce what is written in law, adding that “Government guidance is not enforceable; for example, two-metre distancing, avoiding public transport, or the wearing of face coverings in enclosed spaces”.

† Further to the 2019 FBEL: article, Taxation truly is theft: a “sitrep”, it is hoped that a Judicial Review can be staged this year.

It's important to donate to FBEL - please see here to find out why
A PayPal account not required.