The owner of a Bradford hair salon is facing a savage £27,000 in fines for repeatedly opening in breach of the government’s fraudulent COVID-19 lockdown edicts.
Sinead Quinn was working at Quinn Blakey Hairdressers in Oakenshaw when Kirklees Council officers swooped and issued a £4,000 fine. When the salon opened again on the following Monday and Tuesday, the council was quick to hit Ms Quinn with two further savage and exorbitant £10,000 fines, which were added to £1,000 and £2,000 fines for previous raids.
Posting on Instagram, Ms Quinn whose courage in facing the intimidation of officialdom has been hailed as an example to us all, said she did not consent to or accept the fines.
The council will now have to argue its case in the courts, a procedure that carries some risk as it is unclear whether the fines are legal, particularly in light of the fact that the lockdown itself now stands exposed as based on fraudulent statistics – not least those derived from the PCR test, thoroughly discredited for its notorious and egregious inaccuracies.
As it has emerged that the government is well aware that the PCR test cannot be used to detect a live virus, the thousands of “cases” declared as a result of “positives” from the test are almost certain to be knowing misdiagnoses, thus rendering the whole premise for lockdown fraudulent.
The scandal has not, however, deterred Kirklees council from using the opportunity to attempt to extract thousands in fines from local businesses that refuse to be shut down on the justification of a known fraud.
As one observer, who must remain anonymous, pointed out,
“It is as pity that local councilors and their officials cannot act more honorably and support and help their local businesses instead of becoming an enforcement arm for a corrupt central government.”
The salon owner meanwhile posted videos on Instagram that show her telling council officials and police, she has not broken any laws. She said, “I don’t consent to any fines, so it will just be returned to sender.”
This reporter is admittedly unsure of the legalities here but advice from another quarter suggests she may well have a point. It would be for the courts to decide but it is debatable whether the fines can be legally enforced.
England is currently in a national lockdown with strict rules that contend that “non-essential” (whatever that means exactly) shops, including hairdressers, must close. But as these rules are based on what is now known to be a fraudulent hoax perpetrated by a disingenuous central government, many are questioning their sanity and morality as well as their legality.
Indeed, in what is now commonly known as the COVID Scam, small businesses seem to have been selected by the government scammers as their main targets. Destruction of small businesses, hairdressers, cafes, pubs and so forth seems to have been one of the goals of the scam, although it is as yet unclear as to motives.
A growing number of people have become outraged by the government’s shabby conduct and are calling for the architects of and collaborators with the scam to stand trial, the damage to the country having been so extensive it casts the perpetrators in the role of an enemy.
The country as a whole has moved a step closer to open revolt, with the mood shifting towards civil disobedience and local communities organising to protect themselves from state oppression.
With the so-called pandemic now shown to have been a smoke-and-mirrors fraud based on falsified statistics and misrepresentations by government ministers, most people feel that it is deceitful to try to justify attacks on small businesses such as that of Ms Quinn as necessary to “protect the public”. This is mainly because the public is in little or no actual danger – whilst the small minority who are are perfectly capable of taking steps to protect themselves and thus avoid the entire economy being ruined on their account – something that most of them do not want in any case.
Kirklees council, however, has thus far risked the wrath of the local community by continuing to justify its actions: a council spokesman confirmed the fines, saying it had found the business to be “open and trading”.
The first occasion was on 9 November, when a prohibition notice to close was served and £1,000 fine issued, and the second on 12 Nov, when a £2,000 fine was imposed.
The council said in a somewhat disingenuous PR statement: “We completely understand how tough it has been, and continues to be, for local businesses throughout the Covid-19 pandemic. We will do all we can to support them through what has been a devastating period, but it is absolutely crucial for people’s safety that we all follow the latest Covid-19 rules and guidance.”
The council avoided addressing the point of whom exactly was placed in danger.
It is widely known now that COVID19 produces no or mild symptoms in most of the people who catch it for real – symptoms pretty much the same as a cold – and very serious symptoms in a very few highly vulnerable people.
The highly vulnerable includes mainly the very elderly (the average age of death with COVID 19 is around 82 years old!) and the very ill such as people with cancer and so forth.
As those who are extremely vulnerable are expected to take common-sense steps to protect themselves or are too ill or frail to go out anyway, they are unlikely to frequent a hairdresser. And if someone who is at risk by virtue of age or frailty decides to take a chance and visit a hairdresser anyway, the risk taken is on their own decision.
The council added that Kirklees has the “fifth highest rate of COVID infection in the country”, with 135 hospital admissions last week and 25 people dying with coronavirus.
It did not specify whether “Coronavirus” meant all of the viruses in the Coronavirus family or COVID19 specifically. But in any case these numbers are based largely on the fraudulent PCR test, by which anyone who tests positive from a test known to be around 93% inaccurate (as recently confirmed by a court in Portugal that declared all measures based thereon to be illegal) who enters hospital for any reason is counted as a “COVID admission” and anyone who tested positive who later dies for ANY reason is counted as a “COVID death”.
Noticeably the council used the phrase “WITH coronavirus” and not OF it – in recognition of the fact that it does not know if ANY of the deaths were actually caused by a coronavirus, let alone COVID19.
This of course renders the numbers unreliable to the point of being meaningless.
As the council must know this it, is unclear why it nevertheless made such a misleading statement.
The council said it was now “in the process of exploring alternative action”, whatever that means.
Telling the truth and helping the local community get though this period of oppression would probably be a good place to start.
West Yorkshire Police wisely said that it was a matter for the council.
Some observers are saying that the police are reluctant to act as an enforcement arm of the State, engaged as it is in possible illegalities deriving from its hoax.
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.