The Truth About Isabel Oakeshott

A lesson in bootlicking

In this week’s edition of The Spectator, Isabel Oakeshott, who reminds me of a disappointed Labrador sucking a lemon, has well and truly cemented her reputation, along with other conservative commentators, as an establishment-shagging, bauble-loving, bootlicking collaborator.

In her latest bile-inducing piece entitled The Truth About Matt Hancock, Oakeshott, Talk TV’s International Editor, and co-author of Hancock’s psychopathic confessional The Pandemic Diaries, defends her choice to co-author the tome:

“Journalists don’t only interrogate people they agree with. Quite the reverse. I wanted to get to the truth. What better way to find out what really happened – who said what to whom; the driving force and thinking behind key policies and decisions; who (if anyone) dissented; and how they were crushed – than to align myself with the key player?”

If journalists like Oakeshott had done their fucking job, and interrogated the government two and a half years ago, we may not be where we are, but instead they became willing participants in the global propaganda.

This is not conjecture, it’s fact.

Oakeshott keeps alluding to a ‘pandemic’, but according to official ONS statistics below, 2020 records the 11th lowest number of deaths in 30 years:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/freedomofinformationfoi/deathsintheukfrom1990to2020

However, and this is the important bit so pay attention: among those lower than average deaths were tragic suicides, deaths at home, and deaths due to delayed diagnoses as a direct result of government policy spearheaded by one Matthew Hancock. 

If anything it was a pandemic of grotesque inhumanity, and Hancock was gleefully encouraging its spread. But Oakeshott can’t be too mean about him, because she’s probably having dinner next week at The Corinthia with Dick, Matty and Gina.

On 8th June 2022, Oakeshott Interviewed Hancock on The Speakeasy Podcast she created with PR man, and fellow ‘freedom fighter’ James Melville. Astonishingly, the interview wasn’t an opportunity to grill him on his crimes, or make a citizen’s arrest, but to discuss *drum roll* cryptocurrency.

The comments under this video sum up how many people feel towards Hancock, and those who continue to give him any wiggle room. One comment reads:

‘I do not possess sufficient vocabulary to adequately convey my contempt and loathing for this man, on whose hands is so much blood. But, for this, you two inhuman puppets deserve every ounce of criticism that comes your way. Shameful and disgraceful.’

Couldn’t have put it better myself, mate.

After the podcast backlash, both Melville and Oakeshott claimed that they had always planned to invite Hancock back to talk about the lockdowns etc. This was simply untrue. They never had any intention of grilling him.

As a side note, I was in a WhatsApp group started by Melville, but after a while I observed that they all seemed to be more interested in quaffing Prosecco in stately homes and expensive Italian restaurants, than addressing the fact that we were living in a dystopian nightmare. I always found an excuse not to go to any of the social gatherings. It made me uneasy that this seemed to be an exclusive meedja club. Immediately after the cosy Hancock Crypto podcast, I recorded a voice message for the group. I used the words ‘despicable’, ‘traitors’ and ‘cunts’ quite a lot.

I had gradually come to the conclusion that these people are not the resistance, but the Vichy regime. 

I promptly left the group.

In a section entitled Vaccine Policy Oakeshott writes:

‘In Hancock’s defence, he would have been crucified for failing to order enough vaccines for everybody, just in case. He deserves credit for harnessing the full power of the state to accelerate the development of the Oxford/AstraZeneca jab.’

Oakeshott is not only defending Hancock, she’s giving the bastard credit for using his political power to inject millions of people, of all ages, with an experimental mRNA gene therapy. It's 2022 and this so-called journalist hasn’t grasped the scale of the damage being done with these ‘vaccines’.

She adds: “Sadly, we now know some young people died as a result of adverse reactions to a jab they never needed.”

The understatement from Oakeshott is no mistake. She’s deliberately minimising the apocalyptic nature of what’s happened to try and create some sympathy for her establishment chum.

Please note for the record that on 10th November 2020 Matt Hancock addressed the House of Commons saying:

“This vaccine will not be used for children… this is an adult vaccine for the adult population.”

But as we know, the ‘vaccine’ did not stop at the adult population. It has been injected into all age groups, including pregnant women, and Pfizer has just been approved for use in 6 month old babies in the UK.

There has been a marked spike in all-cause mortality since 2021.

How in God’s name can Oakeshott calmly defend the indefensible?

Regarding the monitoring of ‘vaccine’ side-effects she writes:

In early January 2021, Hancock casually asked Chris Whitty ‘where we are up to on the system for monitoring events after rollout’.‘I was told that we were doing it, but I worry that the details will be shonky,’ he told Whitty, sounding as if it was all a bit of an afterthought.

If injury and death from an experimental ‘vaccine’ you’ve rolled out is a mere afterthought, you’re dealing with somebody who has no regard for humanity.

In a section entitled Scotland, there seems to be an attempt to lay blame at Sturgeon’s feet for encouraging Hancock to become a bigger psychopath. He didn’t need help in that department. Mind you, nor did Sturgeon. As you can see in the following paragraph, Oakeshott praises the ‘vaccine’ rollout, revealing her to be the duplicitous, sycophantic, wonky-fringed fool she actually is.

“More positively, ministers worked hard to use the vaccine rollout to reinforce Union ties. Very early on, Defence Secretary Ben Wallace suggested there should be a Union Jack on all packaging. Hancock repeatedly tried to persuade regulators to let the government brand the Oxford/AstraZeneca jab in this way.”

Yes, a pretty Union Jack on the packaging would have made all the difference to the blood clots, myocarditis and sudden cardiac arrests. Perhaps the Oxford/AstraZeneca jab should have played Jerusalem as the needle went in?

As far as dissenting voices go, Oakeshott has this to say:

“As far as Hancock was concerned, anyone who fundamentally disagreed with his approach was mad and dangerous and needed to be shut down.”

It continues…

“Such was the fear of ‘anti-vaxxers’ that the Cabinet Office used a team hitherto dedicated to tackling Isis propaganda to curb their influence. The zero-tolerance approach extended to dissenting doctors and academics. The eminent scientists behind the so-called Barrington Declaration, which argued that public health efforts should focus on protecting the most vulnerable while allowing the general population to build up natural immunity to the virus, were widely vilified: Hancock genuinely considered their views a threat to public health.”

Oakeshott writes about this squashing of free discourse as if it’s remotely justifiable, rather than being utterly appalled that it’s the result of ministerial decisions made by a psychopath who enjoyed wielding control over the British people.

In the section entitled Care Homes she writes:

“Hancock is more sensitive about this subject than any other. The accusation that he blithely discharged Covid-positive patients from hospitals into care homes, without thinking about how this might seed the virus among the frail elderly, or attempting to stop this happening, upsets and exasperates him. The evidence I have seen is broadly in his favour.”

‘Broadly in his favour?’ Yet nothing about ordering vast quantities of Midazolam to help the convenient DNR process the NHS is so enamoured of, eh Mrs Tice?

It continues…

“He is on less solid ground in relation to the treatment of isolated care-home residents and their increasingly desperate relatives.”

Yet, Oakeshott still writes about this disgusting inhumanity as if it’s a Waitrose shopping list.

Notably, there is no mention anywhere of Hancock farming out extremely lucrative PPE procurement contracts to his mates down the pub. Billions of pounds of tax payer’s money was used on this part of the Covid pantomime.

Our money that the government now want back in taxes. Add this to the shopping list of crimes, Mrs Tice.

On the subject of Masks Oakeshott directly quotes Hancock as follows:

“I said I could see no reason not to use the power of the state to enforce it and that the importance of masks should be in all our messaging.”

So this man deliberately pursued cruel, unethical CCP policies that saw all ages struggling for breath, because they were wearing the filthy muzzles he endorsed.

The section entitled Cancer reveals that oncology treatment protocols were arbitrarily changed on behalf of Emperor Covid:

“In a diary entry in May 2020, Hancock reveals concerns that hospitals had neither the technology nor expertise to treat cancer patients in a way that didn’t increase their chances of dying of Covid. It was feared chemotherapy would make them more vulnerable to the disease, so hospitals were supposed to switch to radiotherapy. It now transpires they didn’t have the necessary kit.”

Dear reader, I don’t need to tell you that this disgraceful decision will have resulted in untold misery, because cancers that could have been halted will have metastasised. All because one man decided that those lives were somehow less important.

After a half-hearted attempt to appear critical of this lunatic, this is how the gut-churningly revisionist piece concludes:

“There is no doubt that Hancock worked phenomenally hard to do what he felt was best, based on all the information available at the time. Day after day, he was forced to make tremendously difficult judgments, balancing sharply competing interests. The number of critical decisions he was required to make, edits and instructions he had to issue, meetings he had to attend and calls he had to field would have tested anyone to their limits – and did. While vast sums of public money were wasted and the collateral damage from lockdowns and other Covid policies was enormous, I do not believe there was any kind of conspiracy, still less any malign intent on the part of our political leaders during the crisis. They may have been misguided; and got some things catastrophically wrong, but mistakes were made in good faith. Whether or not those errors will be forgiven by a public only just beginning to realise the full consequences is another question.” 

I’m sure that I’m not alone in feeling a burning sense of rage that this cowardly excuse for an article, comprising a list of deliberate, unspeakable cruelty, dares to conclude with this simpering, mealy-mouthed paragraph. It brings to mind the judge at Ted Bundy’s trial, Edward Cowart, who told Bundy in his post-sentencing remarks: You're a bright young man. You'd have made a good lawyer and I would have loved to have you practice in front of me, but you went another way, partner. I don't feel any animosity toward you.

If only Bundy hadn’t raped, mutilated and murdered all those women.

The truth about Matt Hancock is that he has zealously collaborated in heinous crimes against his fellow human beings and shows not an ounce of remorse. Oakeshott, and other apologists, are attempting to excuse his crimes purely so that they can remain members of that cosy, establishment club.

What a fucking shameful legacy to leave behind.

==================================================================