English Reject Full Lockdown, But Minor Restrictions Remain Popular

A poll has found that the English public is accepting of certain restrictions, but that the idea of a full lockdown remains extremely unpopular.

A YouGov poll released yesterday has found that the English public is overwhelmingly against the reintroduction of strict lockdown rules, though less disruptive measures such as mask-wearing and social distancing remain popular.

Tighter rules regarding COVID were reimplemented in England last month after the emergence of the new Omicron variant of the Chinese Coronavirus.

The poll found that 68 per cent of English adults are against the closing of pubs and restaurants, with only 23 per cent supporting closures. 9 per cent are unsure regarding the reimplementation of the measure.

64 per cent also rejected only allowing people to leave their homes for essential shopping, work, and exercise, while 61 per cent rejected the idea of preventing people from meeting up with others they do not live with indoors.

Support for a variety of more minor measures remains high, however, with restrictions such as mask-wearing in stores and on public transport, as well as social distancing in bars and restaurants, being popular with the English public.

Support for all measures, extreme or otherwise, has also risen since July, according to the poll, though only slightly. This coincides with increased fears regarding the new Omicron variant of the Wuhan virus.

While the idea of extreme coronavirus restrictions remains unpopular in England, the British government has refused to rule out the imposition of harsher measures in the lead up to Christmas.

“It would be irresponsible to make guarantees,” Health Secretary Sajid Javid said regarding the possibility of a lockdown, though he recommended that “people should continue with their plans as normal for Christmas”.

The government has also come under fire over how the more recent restrictions have been implemented.

New rules, which once again require the wearing of masks on public transport and in retail settings, but also mandate close contacts of Omicron cases to self-isolate for ten days even if they test negative for the virus, are set to be reviewed by the government in mid-December.

However, some Conservative MPs have pointed out that the legislation backing the new measures is only set to expire in March next year, long after the promised review date — raising questions as to how long the restrictions will actually last.

The news that the English public rejects more stringent COVID measures stands in stark contrast with views in other European countries.

Germany has announced a lockdown for the unvaccinated on Thursday, and will also consider making vaccination against the coronavirus mandatory after a poll found that the majority of Germans were in favour of compulsory jabs.

The measure is also popular in Austria, with 55 per cent of adults in favour of what has been termed “Covid Apartheid”.

Austria has committed to enforcing measures mandating coronavirus vaccination from February, with those who refuse injections facing a indefinite lockdown, hefty fines, and possibly prison time.

Greece has also announced that those over 60 who remain unvaccinated will face rolling monthly fines from January.

The entirety of the European Union could soon be facing compulsory vaccination, with European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen suggesting that discussions need to be had regarding a vaccine mandate within the bloc — a move that has been described as a step towards the “Chinafication of Europe”.

Follow Breitbart London on Facebook: Breitbart London


Political prisoner Solange is free AGAIN after BEEN KIDNAPPED twice by self confessed terrorist criminal groups Click HERE for TRUE story


The Covid-19 Vaccine Kills!

What is going on is a bio weapon heart stopper - the elites call a 'vaccine'

Austria Imposing Mandatory Vaxx – Violates International Law

Austria Imposing Mandatory Vaxx – Violates International Law

Austria Imposing Mandatory Vaccination Regime Violates International Law

While vaccines can play a major role in fighting against the current pandemic, to enforce this medical intervention on anyone violates every aspect of human liberty and freedom, which many generations of men and women have fought to ensure.

By: Robert Bridge

Western media has been shockingly nonchalant about Austria announcing it would become “the first European country” to make vaccines against Covid 19 mandatory, with possible prison sentences for non-compliance. Can we get a second opinion?

Amid a surge in new Covid cases, Austria has ordered a 10-day lockdown of its entire population – including those who have received inoculations – starting on November 22. On top of that, the government said it was preparing legislation for a mandatory vaccine regime to be rolled out on February 1st, the chancellor, Alexander Schallenberg, has announced.

We haven’t been able to convince enough people to vaccinate,” Schallenberg said in an effort to rationalize the draconian decision. “For too long, I and others have assumed that you can convince people to get vaccinated.”

Incidentally, Schallenberg, who descends from a long line of blue-blooded Austro-Hungarian nobles, was hand chosen to replace Sebastian Kurz as chancellor last month as the latter became embroiled in a testy corruption probe. Immediately following Schallenberg’s appointment, wily Covid-19, perhaps seeing a golden opportunity for a power play amid the chaos, surged in the country.

What the new Austrian chancellor seems to have forgotten, however, in his desire to play medical dictator is that people have a right to self-autonomy over their bodies. Strongly encouraging civilians to receive a vaccination is one thing; forcing it upon them by coercion – on pain of financial penalties and even imprisonment in the event they cannot pay – is crossing the humanitarian red line. That much, at least, has been determined by the United Nations.

In October 2005, some 190 UNESCO Member States adopted the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights, which committed the signatories and the international community to “respect and apply fundamental ethical principles related to medicine, the life sciences and associated technologies.”

Article 6, Section 3 reads:

In appropriate cases of research carried out on a group of persons or a community, additional agreement of the legal representatives of the group or community concerned may be sought. In no case should a collective community agreement or the consent of a community leader or other authority substitute for an individual’s informed consent.”

Speaking on the need for the Declaration, Pierre Sané, former UNESCO’s Assistant Director-General for Social and Human Sciences (2001-2010), discussed a meningitis pandemic that swept through the Nigerian city of Kano in 1996. Pfizer, in what it described as a “humanitarian gesture,” offered to help by making available a new antibiotic drug called Trovan, which could be administered orally to children. Pfizer failed to acknowledge, however, that Trovan had never been tested in a disease outbreak, nor was it ever given to children orally. Nevertheless, six weeks after the outbreak had occurred, 200 children participated in Pfizer’s clinical trial.

Sané explained what eventually happened: “A governmental committee of medical experts investigated the Trovan trial and concluded that it was illegal and unethical. The desperation of the parents and the emergency situation made it easy to enroll patients in the trial, suggesting free treatment for a serious disease. Parents with infected children were often not aware that they were included in a clinical trial; they were afraid for their children and did not ask many questions…

In many cases no permission was requested to test the drug. Pfizer argued that informed consent could not be obtained from parents because they were illiterate. In this impoverished part of the country, few parents indeed could speak or write English,” Sané added.

Shocking as it was, the 2001 report by the Nigerian medical authorities was never released to the public. Not until May 2006 did the Washington Post (thanks to the intervention of a whistleblower) report that Pfizer had conducted an illegal trial of an unregistered drug. The revelations showed a clear case of exploitation, in violation of international law, where impoverished, illiterate and uninformed people unwittingly stood in for guinea pigs. It also appeared that the medical trial had never been approved by an ethics committee, although Pfizer produced a letter of approval, dated March 1996. There was no ethics committee in existence in Kano at that time.

In addition to Pfizer’s apparent criminal record, the recipients of their vaccines have no legal recourse in the event they are injured or worse. And although it is rarely discussed in the mainstream media, people are suffering severe injury, even death, as a result of these unproven inoculations. The CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) has recorded 4,694 deaths, 5,413 “life-threatening” reactions to Pfizer’s vaccine, and 23,867 hospitalizations as a result of the inoculation in the U.S. to date (critics contend, however, that the numbers of injuries have been drastically underreported). Yet, the pharmaceutical companies enjoy full indemnity from any legal action, which should be of concern considering these vaccines, issued in accordance with an ‘Emergency Use Authorization,’ were developed in – to quote former U.S. President Donald Trump – “warp speed.” Just a non-professional hunch, but ‘warp’, ‘speed’ and ‘vaccine’ are three words that should never appear in the same sentence.

Incidentally, should anyone be interested in educating themselves on the details of the Pfizer vaccine before they submit to the jab, they will have to wait until the year 2076 when the 329,000 pages of data can be released in its entirety (or, as a judge recently ruled, 500 pages per day).

It took the FDA precisely 108 days from when Pfizer started producing the records for licensure (on May 7, 2021) to when the FDA licensed the Pfizer vaccine (on August 23, 2021),” argued Aaron Siri, a lawyer working on behalf of Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency, which submitted the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the FDA. “While [the FDA] can conduct that intense review of Pfizer’s documents in 108 days, it now asks for over 20,000 days to make these documents available to the public.”

Despite what must be considered a shadowy record at best, Austria just committed itself to the astonishingly draconian demand that its people either take one of these jabs (from either Pfizer, or another brand) or be ostracized from polite society, and possibly even sent to prison.

Chancellor Schallenberg may wish to inform himself that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights took a heavy cue from the Nuremberg Code (1947), which issued from the Nuremberg trials of medical researchers (known as the ‘Doctors’ Trial’) who were convicted of committing horrific crimes against humanity in the name of medical research.

The first recommendation of that Code concerns the issue of informed consent, which acknowledges respect for personal autonomy in medicine, as well as recognizing that physicians should avoid actions that injure human patients.

It reads as follows: ”The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonable to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment.”

The Austrian government is glaringly ignoring the very first line of the Code that reads: “The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.” This is a gross denial of history, a notoriously grim history, which condemned millions of innocent people to a humanitarian nightmare. While vaccines can play a major role in fighting against the current pandemic, to enforce this medical intervention on anyone violates every aspect of human liberty and freedom, which many generations of men and women have fought to ensure. It’s time to stop the segregation of society, a creeping global apartheid, which will ultimately lead to far more death and injury than any virus.


This article (Austria Imposing Mandatory Vaccination Regime Violates International Law) was originally created and published by Strategic Culture Foundation and is republished here with permission and attribution to the author Robert Bridge and strategic-culture.org.

About the articles Author: Robert Bridge is a writer and journalist. You can read more articles by Robert by clicking here


More articles about COVID Vaccine Mandates


Click on image below to visit site:



Stay tuned to …


The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)


Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.


Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.


Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.


Political prisoner Solange is free AGAIN after BEEN KIDNAPPED twice by self confessed terrorist criminal groups Click HERE for TRUE story


The Covid-19 Vaccine Kills!

What is going on is a bio weapon heart stopper - the elites call a 'vaccine'


Please help truthPeep spread the word :)