Random Thoughts

[Black Shepherd Carnage]

For the moment, they're not going to sign anything away since it's not even in the timeframe of a working draft yet. What did you want RTE (presuming you mean the telly news too) to report on?

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/01/world/who-pandemic-treaty.html

The agreement calls for negotiators to deliver the result of their deliberations in May 2024.

RTE website did cover it:
https://www.rte.ie/news/coronavirus/2021/1122/1262410-coronavirus-who/

[The Butcher]

Amendments to the Constitution of Ireland are only possible by way of referendum. Probably one of the very few decent ideas Dev had!

[astfgyl]

I hear several of the amendments in that treaty have been scrapped lately. I don't think it went down as well as was hoped but for sure the lads who make money off it will give it their best shot (pun intended)

[son of the Morrigan]

Amendments to the Constitution of Ireland are only possible by way of referendum. Probably one of the very few decent ideas Dev had!

The thing is they don't have to amend the constitution man, they'll just invoke the emergency powers act of 1939 and  give control over to the WHO on public health grounds. Its septic.

[son of the Morrigan]

For the moment, they're not going to sign anything away since it's not even in the timeframe of a working draft yet. What did you want RTE (presuming you mean the telly news too) to report on?

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/01/world/who-pandemic-treaty.html

The agreement calls for negotiators to deliver the result of their deliberations in May 2024.

RTE website did cover it:
https://www.rte.ie/news/coronavirus/2021/1122/1262410-coronavirus-who/

You'r a gas man, on one hand ya ask why would it be reported on since there is nothing to report, while on the other hand ya say it has been reported on, which one can only assume means there is something to report.
Anyway, that aside, yes, I was referring to the T.V. news and given that our department of health are involved in the discussions around its creation I would suggest it deserves at least a mention, it is after all an issue of national importance. The timeline for its implementation is irrelevant, negotiations are afoot presently.

[Black Shepherd Carnage]

I just asked you a question: what did you need them to say, specifically in the 30 minute telly slot, for you not to presume there's a mainstream media blackout on the subject, despite it being reported in the biggest international and national online mainstream media? Not everything you don't want to happen is part of a grand cover up which can only be known about via places that eschew mainstream media so much they don't even know what's on it. Sometimes people don't see things reported in the mainstream media simply because they're not really looking at it.

[son of the Morrigan]

I was referring specifically to RTE news man, which is the only news reporting a lot Irish people, the older generation in the main, are exposed to and rely on to keep them informed of important issues.
RTE are supposed to be a public service broadcaster and I would suggest they have failed in their duty to the Irish people by never mentioning the fact that this treaty is being negotiated, what the basic framework of the treaty is, how it would affect the people of Ireland should it be ratified and outlining the basics of the WHO constitution with particular attention being given to articles 19,20 and 21 of said constitution.
If you were to do a survey of Irish people I think you would be shocked to find the number of people who have no idea that this Treaty is being discussed.

[astfgyl]

I fall into that camp of not seeing things reported on rte because I don't watch it, so that's a fair point.

I do however also know that the average person on the street here hasn't a notion of what that treaty entails. I know because I mention it often enough to see that people haven't a clue, and by the time they do hear about it it'll already be fact checked as conspiracy theory that there's even the remotest possibility it will ever have any possible negative effect on your life.

Of course the whole reason for doing anything like this treaty for right or wrong is indeed for it to have an effect on your life at some point. Perhaps a bit of an explainer for the folks who don't read online news would be fair enough and maybe when the time comes people might get one after it's been signed.

Here's some things we do know..

This treaty that no-one knows about the details of (including me) will be designed to facilitate greater influence over national policies by the WHO during times when a pandemic is declared by the WHO (because that's what they're saying it is for).

The WHO happens to be fronted by some Somalian lad (accused of doing dicey shit in his own country) with no medical qualifications. It's second largest donor is a private citizen https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/04/who-funds-world-health-organization-un-coronavirus-pandemic-covid-trump/ who just happens to be heavily invested in the vaccine industry but also has no medical qualifications whatsoever. It's generally accepted that he just really really really just wants to help people (you) because he's a philanthropist.

Has rte explained any of that, for the people who watch it? Does anyone reckon that people would think any differently about any of it if it were to be put to them like that? I'm not sure.

They can find out if it made any difference to them or not in due course but as we already know, none of that counts for shit if an emergency is declared here and the constitution suspended. It happened, it'll happen again.

[Black Shepherd Carnage]

Lads, the final DRAFT (please look up what this word means) is due in 2024, after which it would still have to be signed, ratified, and ultimately enforced. On which point, here's an extract from Article 20 of the WHO constitution, which you're brandishing as some kind of contract signed in blood:

if [a Member] does not accept such convention or agreement within the time limit, it will furnish a statement of the reasons for non-acceptance.

Holy god! If a member state decides to opt out of a decision, the WHO will come down on them like a ton of bricks and demand that they... say why they're not accepting! Outrageous. Stop the presses! No, not good enough, get those cameras rolling and interrupt all broadcasts on all channels: the people, even those who don't really care about the news all that much, must be informed! Russell Brand and the bloke from Right Said Fred say it's the end of democracy!

[Black Shepherd Carnage]

Not saying, by the way, that these things aren't worth following, discussing, getting informed on, critiquing etc. Just stop turning everything you don't like and don't hear about from 6-1 news into a conspiracy. It's absolutely devoid of rationality and actually negates rather than strengthens your voice, because you sound paranoid. And that's because it is paranoid to claim that something not squeezed into the 30 minute telly news slot is for that sole reason therefore the subject of a conspiracy cover up.

[astfgyl]

Lads, the final DRAFT (please look up what this word means) is due in 2024, after which it would still have to be signed, ratified, and ultimately enforced. On which point, here's an extract from Article 20 of the WHO constitution, which you're brandishing as some kind of contract signed in blood:

if [a Member] does not accept such convention or agreement within the time limit, it will furnish a statement of the reasons for non-acceptance.

Holy god! If a member state decides to opt out of a decision, the WHO will come down on them like a ton of bricks and demand that they... say why they're not accepting! Outrageous. Stop the presses! No, not good enough, get those cameras rolling and interrupt all broadcasts on all channels: the people, even those who don't really care about the news all that much, must be informed! Russell Brand and the bloke from Right Said Fred say it's the end of democracy!

Check my post again, I didn't mention any conspiracy theory other than fact checkers would say it's one. All the things I said are factual, including the part in the earlier post where I said it's being adjusted because a lot of the amendments don't appear to be acceptable to member states.

Saying all that we all know in our heart of hearts that however the WHOs position is strengthened, it'll be to bate more vaccines into everyone. Whether one thinks it's a good or bad thing is up to themselves. I couldn't care less as long as no-one tries to mandate it again to be fair.

And again I dunno what is or isn't on six one because I don't watch it at all

[Black Shepherd Carnage]

I was mainly addressing Morrigan.

But as for the "amendments" to the "treaty" you're talking about, there have been no "amendments" since the "treaty" doesn't exist yet. There are only propositions which are part of negotiations towards a final draft not expected within the next two years.

[astfgyl]

Yes, proposed amendments. But you knew that's what I meant. Anyway I seriously only care if it leads to lockdowns and mandates. If it is as appears to be and can't override national sovereignty then they can all do what they like. I've my mind made up about the WHO and their carry on. I'm sure the opposition to it will be full of shit too in their own way!

[son of the Morrigan]

I was mainly addressing Morrigan.

But as for the "amendments" to the "treaty" you're talking about, there have been no "amendments" since the "treaty" doesn't exist yet. There are only propositions which are part of negotiations towards a final draft not expected within the next two years.

If you read back on my posts you will find that I also have never made any suggestion of a conspiracy or a cover-up in relation to the treaty, you are in fact the only one who has alluded to such.
I

[Black Shepherd Carnage]

this wasn't reported on the news needless to say ,in keeping with the total media blackout on the subject as a whole.
Not to worry though, its for our own good, shut up, nothing to see here, move along now, here's the latest on the Depp v Heard trial.

I guess "total media blackout on the subject as a whole", besides being false, means something where you come from that makes it not a suggestion of a conspiracy or a cover-up. I'm just saying, cool the beans; just 'cos it's not on Six One news, don't mean shit, no reason to be going paraphrasing poor dead Bill Hicks.