another UK Gov WHO petion

Searching the web I come across many who are of the opinion that the WHO is up to no good. Our Government and Labour are seemly fully committed to supporting the WHO. Do you agree with them?

Neil Oliver on GBNews
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KhZlUK6UMAI

The Expose website
https://expose-news.com/2023/11/19/uk-will-not-end-who-membership/

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/648609

Broadly, I agree with the UK government supporting WHO. It's good to have a view of world health that is not unduly influenced by the agenda of any one country.

Some people don't like it because Bill Gates is a major funds provider. So what? That's probably only a big concern to people who think that Bill Gates is an evil madman, intent on tracking everyone on the planet through Covid injections.

People complain that it's not democratically elected. But how many truly global agencies are? The reason is mainly practical more than anything else - realistically, how could the whole world elect representatives? So, to quote from the wiki:

"The WHO is governed by the World Health Assembly (WHA), which is composed of its 194 member states. The WHA elects and advises an executive board made up of 34 health specialists; selects the WHO's chief administrator, the director-general, ... sets goals and priorities; and approves the budget and activities."

I won't be signing the petition.

Neil Oliver    I'll Pass 

Crikey - you mean that Neil Oliver? I only know him as the cheerful presenter of Coast and a few other telly documentaries.

Who would have guessed that he could fall that low? A conspiracy theorist on GB News...

But anyway, leaving that aside, I still won't be signing the petition!

Nope I wont be signing it either, however, after the Monster Raving Loony party (oops, sorry, Government) introduced a Minister for Common Sense, if a petition to get John Cleese as the Minister for Funny Walks appears then that I would sign...

I'm not in favour of any foreign organisations holding sway over our country and government. Iirc we are about to hand control of our policy and enforcement (lockdowns) of the next pandemic over to the WHO which is wrong. Our country, our laws. 
Rich..

One of the main (unresolved) problems from the Covid pandemic is that when you have no central co-ordination, you have a situation where each country makes its own rules up. If there were no links between countries that would be fine, but in reality, travel and trade make that unworkable.

You only have to look at the situation in the UK, where each of the local governments vied to make rules that were inconsistent with one another. In the main, the reasons for this were political, not practical.

So I believe there's a case for a central body to at least co-ordinate global pandemic response.

As I understand it, the exact way that's done, and the role of the WHO in that, has yet to be decided. It may simply be that it is given greater investigatory powers, so that, for example, we don't get a repeat of the situation in China where the authorities effectively stalled any investigation into the Wuhan outbreak for many months.

I found the following article by Reuters relevant. As far as I can tell, Reuters has no reason to report on this in a biased way:

https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/how-world-health-organization-might-face-future-pandemics-2022-02-24/

As you would expect, the subject is a lot more complex than just "we mustn't let the WHO take control of our country".

Roopert wrote:One of the main (unresolved) problems from the Covid pandemic is that when you have no central co-ordination, you have a situation where each country makes its own rules up. If there were no links between countries that would be fine, but in reality, travel and trade make that unworkable.

You only have to look at the situation in the UK, where each of the local governments vied to make rules that were inconsistent with one another. In the main, the reasons for this were political, not practical.

So I believe there's a case for a central body to at least co-ordinate global pandemic response.

As I understand it, the exact way that's done, and the role of the WHO in that, has yet to be decided. It may simply be that it is given greater investigatory powers, so that, for example, we don't get a repeat of the situation in China where the authorities effectively stalled any investigation into the Wuhan outbreak for many months.

I found the following article by Reuters relevant. As far as I can tell, Reuters has no reason to report on this in a biased way:

https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/how-world-health-organization-might-face-future-pandemics-2022-02-24/

As you would expect, the subject is a lot more complex than just "we mustn't let the WHO take control of our country".

...including vaccine roll out and supply remember the EU on this?
Rich..

You can look at that from two points of view.

One is the simple, nationalistic, selfish view, that says that any country that can act quickly "wins", to the detriment of others.

The other is to ask: "What is fair?" - how can we ensure that vaccine roll-out and supply works equitably?

Moderators.... do we really want to develop a discussion which springs from GB News?
The only outcome is likely to be divisive.

merv wrote:Moderators.... do we really want to develop a discussion which springs from GB News?
The only outcome is likely to be divisive.

I've thought about this since you posted and I'm curious what you want the moderators to do.
Rich..

Not to mention the fact that we, sadly, no longer have any moderators.

Tinwheeler wrote:Not to mention the fact that we, sadly, no longer have any moderators.

We do of course have an Admin. If any post/thread upsets or disturbs anyone, they should hit the exclamation mark next to the 'quote' button. They can then give the reason which gets notified to Admin.

Paulmold wrote:
We do of course have an Admin. If any post/thread upsets or disturbs anyone, they should hit the exclamation mark next to the 'quote' button. They can then give the reason which gets notified to Admin.

Yes, agreed, we have Admin/CC as our one and only port of call when something is worthy of reporting but no mods participating in the discussions on a daily basis which is a shame in my view.

On reflection, I don't think I want the moderators (if they exist) to do anything..  I guess my ill-considered comment was because I regard this forum as an oasis of reasonable comment and reflection amongst the uninformed bile that's spewed out by so many media channels and platforms.

merv wrote:On reflection, I don't think I want the moderators (if they exist) to do anything..  I guess my ill-considered comment was because I regard this forum as an oasis of reasonable comment and reflection amongst the uninformed bile that's spewed out by so many media channels and platforms.

It's posted in the "Grumpy" section, so I guess it's in the correct place for those who do want to discuss it.  Free speech and all that!