Single Version of the Truth: OmniGov Edition

20 June 2024

“You’re not a doctor / virologist / immunologist / epidemiologist / scientist / climatologist / expert, what do you know?!?!?!”

This or similar is a phrase bandied about regularly in our credentialised society by those who have outsourced their capacity for critical thinking to the State and like their opinions spoon-fed to them by the media, when they encounter someone who is not a State-Approved Guild of Experts Graduate and who prefers to think for themselves. Questioning the “Single Version of the Truth” as purchased by Governments from their corporate tech/media partners is the modern-day heresy.

In the run up to the launching of the COVID scam, much preparation took place, some of it in the realm of so-called “pandemic preparedness”, things like Clade-X, Dark Winter, Atlantic Storm, SPARS, Crimson Contagion and Event 201. But there were other things being put in place too. While the pandemic simulation war-gaming events were ostensibly about keeping the public safe from deadly viruses, the other things being organised and implemented were about keeping the public safe online, from mean words and mis/disinformation. Of course, the solution proposed for both of those things, i.e. alleged global public health damaging pandemics and online wrongthink is…

Let’s look at some history leading up to the COVID pseudo-pandemic launch date relating to online “public safety”…

Cameron, Clegg and Miliband

On the 25th September 2014 David Cameron was hard-selling surveillance and censorship in his closing speech at the 69th session of the United Nations General Assembly. Wrapped up in the rhetoric and standard manufactured talking points of Nazis, the KKK and ISIL the idea being sold by Cameron was “defeating the ideology of extremism” but of course it wasn’t limited to violent extremism, these things never are. Cameron claimed that certain “world views” also need defeating, based on the claim that they “can be used as a justification” for violence.

Earlier that year in July the Guardian reported the enthusiasm from the leaders of the three main parties for the new legislation at the time, with Cameron, Clegg and Miliband all for it, along with the likes of Malcolm Rifkind who only months later in 2015 was caught along with Labour’s Jack Straw arranging to flog access to Government personnel, lobbying and changing laws even in foreign countries. In an uncanny sequence of events related to now, Straw even claimed he had influence in Ukraine of all places, using “charm and menace” to “convince the Ukrainian prime minister to change laws on behalf” of ED&F Man, a commodities firm who paid him £60,000 a year.

David Cameron was recently embroiled in a lobbying scandal that was largely ignored by the media as the COVID-19 show occupied 99.9% of airtime and column inches. There is an entry on Wikipedia about it, the “Greensill scandal” as it is known involved David Cameron and Lex Greensill who ran a finance and supply chain company. Cameron earned millions from Greensill Capital for “25 days work per year”. He organised lots of Government access for Greensill and attempted to get public money for the company via the Government’s “Covid Corporate Financing Facility” scheme, as well as setting up a meeting with Matt Hancock who was Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. Shortly after that some NHS trusts started using Greensill Capital’s services. What a surprise. There is a lot more to that story and Cameron, like all of them, is as corrupt as they come.

Nick Clegg now works for Facebook, or Meta as they now choose to be called. His job there is to smooth things over and assist in navigating the waters of tech regulation by Governments. Whatever your opinion is of Frances Haugen, the “whistleblower” from Facebook that painted a damning, if slightly partisan and conveniently timed picture of the motivations of Facebook and the unethical, unhealthy and relentless profit and market dominance seeking practices, Clegg hilariously deflects by calling out Apple for making money and claiming that only 10% of the content Facebook users see is algorithmically “recommended”. Meta is not harming anyone, it’s all just mischaracterisation claims “Sir” Clegg.

Ed Miliband is still involved with the UK Government directly. Self-described “socialist” Miliband was appointed as Shadow Business Secretary by Kier Starmer on the 6th April 2020. Miliband’s schtick is “Climate Change”. Back in 2008 he was the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, and in 2021 he reprised that role by becoming the Shadow Secretary of State for Climate Change and Net Zero. According to Wikipedia, Ed Milband’s father was a “Marxist intellectual”, and if there was one thing that aligns itself well with the goal of collectivism at the global level, it’s the Climate Change™ thing.

Those three, Cameron, Clegg and Miliband, all supported the impositions of surveillance and censorship by Government back in 2014. Unsurprisingly, engineered events and legislation keep bolstering each other’s cases for more and more of it. Imagine that.

UK Military Information Operations

In 2015 the British Army changed the name of their “Security Assistance Group” to 77th Brigade. This “hybrid unit” is made up of (according to the MoD website) “Regulars and Reservists with specialist skills to combat new forms of warfare in the information environment for the defence of the UK and its overseas territories”.

According to an archived version of a page from 2021 titled “Groups within 77th Brigade” this unit was made up of the following:

• Defence Cultural Specialist Unit
• Task Group
• Digital Operations Group
• Operational Media and Communications Group
• Outreach Group
• The Staff Corps

Today those groups have been rebranded and reshuffled to these:

• Brigade Operations Centre
• 5th Information Operations Task Force (5 IOTF)
• 101st Information Operations Task Force (101 IOTF)
• 6th Military Intelligence Battalion (6MI)

Some of the descriptions for these groups are very interesting. The 5 IOTF description is:

The highly deployable force elements of 77th Brigade, trained in the delivery of tactical information activities. Using Planning and Liaison Elements and Tactical PsyOps teams, 5IOTF conducts partnered operations and delivers tactical PsyOps activity. 5 IOTF consists of regular soldiers and officers, tri-service and all-arms, who are trained to use unconventional equipment, processes and techniques to have targeted effects on the UK’s adversaries.

Hmmm, “PsyOps”… sounds a bit “conspiracy theory” doesn’t it?

The 101 IOTF description states they recruit from the following areas:

• Photography, Videography & Post-production
• Journalism & Writing
• Marketing & Communication
• Media relations
• Social media, Digital content & online influence
• Information Technology/AI
• Academia & Research (information/mis-information)
• Media monitoring & analysis
• Measurement & Evaluation

It’s all OK though guys, the MoD assures us this PsyOp machinery is only directed at hostile foreign States. The threat of international “terrorist propaganda” is all in hand, 77th Brigade have our backs.

Governments and Big Tech

Just three years later the big tech companies were already on board with this, as reported by Business Insider on the 31st March 2017. The article headlined “Facebook and Google didn’t talk about encryption during their meeting with Home Secretary Amber Rudd” includes an open letter to Amber Rudd signed by Hugh Milward from Microsoft UK, Nick Pickles from Twitter UK, Richard Allan from Facebook and Nicklas Lundblad from Google. In the letter they identify three initial goals to be achieved by this “collaboration” between big tech and Governments. They are:

• further development of technical tools to identify and remove terrorist propaganda
• support younger companies that can benefit from the expertise and experiences of more established ones
• support the efforts of civil society organisations to promote alternative and counter-narratives

Euphemistically phrased, those can be broadly interpreted as:

• spend money on censorship tools and spying tech
• big companies bully smaller companies into complying and using said tools/tech
• use public money to fund “grass-roots” mouthpieces to push the official narrative

They mention the Civil Society Empowerment Programme (CSEP) which is an EU thing that alleges to “supports civil society, grass roots organisations and credible voices”, and it “empowers these different groups to provide effective alternatives to the messages coming from violent extremists and terrorists, as well as ideas that counter extremist and terrorist propaganda”. As any historically literate person understands, the notion of providing alternatives to “messages” the Government doesn’t like has never and will never amount to anything more than a flimsy excuse for brutal, authoritarian censorship.

The article from Business Insider is framing this blatant collaboration of big tech and Government to silence dissent under the guise of tackling “terrorist propaganda” as inadequate. As they bemoan the fact that encryption wasn’t discussed, they ignore the issue that the definition of what a terrorist is, is entirely changeable like many words and their definitions have been recently. Just the same as people who believe it is acceptable to inflict violence on a Nazi suddenly think everyone who disagrees with them is a Nazi, the Government will and is, redefining what a terrorist is to then be allowed to use their new special powers against anyone they see as a problem.

The media as the Government’s PR tool obliges by publishing garbage like this article in the Guardian from January 2022 titled “Concern for UK security as anti-vaxxer groups evolve towards US-style militias”, where they state:

Counter-terrorism officials and police are increasingly concerned over the trajectory of the UK’s anti-vaxxer movement as it evolves towards violent extremism and the formation of US-style militias.

…and:

The movement’s more extreme elements are recruiting and strategising over the encrypted social media messaging app Telegram, with one UK anti-vaxxer channel asking for “men of integrity” to “fight for our children’s future”.

As we see, the usual trigger-words are there, “violent extremism” and “encrypted social media messaging”, all intended to make the reader demand these things are outlawed immediately. Never mind the obvious manipulation of language, attempting to portray the phrase “fight for our children’s future” as a literal call for violence. People use that kind of speech all the time in completely non-violent ways, such as a “fight against a disease”, or even “fighting the tide” which is a phrase used by the British Medical Association as the title for an article about homelessness.

As absurd as this kind of “journalism” is, we have seen over the last four years how devastatingly effective it is, and the Government wants to remove the final vestiges of privacy and freedom that are still bothering them.

Although they would love to, there are reasons why Governments don’t just simply outlaw encryption. They want everyone conducting their lives online, communicating, transacting etc. to be able to monitor and control everything, and encryption is what makes that process moderately workable. If they simply banned encryption then online payments would be impossible. Payment details would be in the open for anyone to look at and steal. Nobody would use such an insecure system as millions of people would get ripped off immediately. Governments therefore tolerate the existence of encryption because 1) without it their plans for a digital life for all would never even get off the ground, and 2) because they also have the military computing power to break most encryption methods if they need/want to, or 3) have backdoors into most, if not all of them anyway. The history of encryption/cryptography is interesting, but is outside the scope of this article.

The tech companies Microsoft, Twitter, Facebook and Google who all participated in the meeting with Amber Rudd collectively responded with a letter that said:

Thank you for the constructive discussion today on the challenges that terrorism poses to us all.
We welcome the opportunity to share with you details of the progress already made in this area and to hear how the UK government is developing its approach in both the online and offline space. Our companies are committed to making our platforms a hostile space for those who seek to do harm and we have been working on this issue for several years. We share the government’s commitment to ensuring terrorists do not have a voice online.
We believe that companies, academics, civil society, and government all have an interest and responsibility to respond to the danger of terrorist propaganda online—and as an industry we are committed to doing more.

Herein lies the problem. Once you commit to the idea of “ensuring terrorists do not have a voice online”, it then becomes just a matter of redefining who is a terrorist to then target anyone with heavy-handed authoritarian censorship. Of course, this is only about “Islamic extremists” and “Nazis”, right?

Censorship To Stop The Nazis

As 2017 progressed we saw more and more efforts to “tackle hate speech” online. On 6th April 2017 CNBC published an article titled “Germany approves bill curbing online hate crime, fake news”. The article says:

Germany’s Cabinet on Wednesday approved a new bill that punishes social networking sites if they fail to swiftly remove illegal content such as hate speech or defamatory fake news.

Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Cabinet agreed on rules that would impose fines of up to 50 million euros ($53.4 million) on Facebook, Twitter and other social media platforms.

German Justice Minister Heiko Maas is quoted as saying:

The internet affects the culture of debate and the atmosphere in our society. Verbal radicalization is often a preliminary stage to physical violence.

This is all to stop the rise of Nazism etc. according to the likes of David Cameron, and Germany is doing it’s best Nazi impression to defeat these other mythical Nazis. Various mouthpieces over the years have said things like “Nazis would have loved the internet and social media”, and here we are with no shortage of irony, almost a century on from WW2, seeing Governments use Nazi-esque censorship to defeat those the Government claims are like Nazis, and “collaborating” with social media tech giants to do so. You couldn’t make it up.

In other news, the Government has come up with a new device to tackle house fires…

By the 10th April 2017 the European Counter Terrorism Centre (ECTC) was hosting it’s very first “Conference on Online Terrorist Propaganda”. Lots of talk about Europol’s EU Internet Referral Unit (EU IRU) which is another “public-private partnership”, and the large number of participants at this conference regarding the “online terrorist threat”, i.e. the manufactured boogeymen known variously as Al-Qaeda, ISIS, ISIL, Jihadists and so on, all of which appeared to have given up their reign of terror just as the COVIDS came along, and then all this terrorist-bashing tech could be repurposed to deal with “anti-vaxxers”. How fortunate that ISIS members decided to hang up their machetes just in time so that the anti-terrorist machinery wasn’t overburdened. As reported by the Times on 9th November 2020…

GCHQ has begun an offensive cyber-operation to disrupt anti-vaccine propaganda being spread by hostile states, The Times understands.

The spy agency is using a toolkit developed to tackle disinformation and recruitment material peddled by Islamic State, according to sources.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/gchq-in-cyberwar-on-anti-vaccine-propaganda-mcjgjhmb2

In that article it says that a Government source had said “GCHQ has been told to take out antivaxers online and on social media. There are ways they have used to monitor and disrupt terrorist propaganda.”

What that statement also does is directly connect the labels “antivaxers” and “terrorists”, effectively putting the “antivaxers” into the category of “terrorists”. That obviously then means the entire 77th Brigade information warfare capabilities are brought to bear on “antivaxers” and are not exclusively dealing with the mythical Nazis and Islamic extremists.

Obviously there is nothing wrong with choosing not to vaccinate. The pejorative term “antivaxers” has been weaponised against people simply exercising their rights to choose to decline a medical intervention. But we are living in strange times, and not believing in the Holy Vaccines is sacrilegious, so all of a sudden your right to choose is tantamount to walking into a church/synagogue/mosque and openly mocking the respective deity in the middle of a special religious event.

Once that lexical sleight-of-hand has been applied, the next step is to redefine “antivaxers” to include anyone not totally on board with “mandated” “vaccines”, which also happened.

As can be seen, every step over the last decade to “tackle online terrorist threats” we were told only dealt with alleged Islamic extremist terrorists until they were no longer needed as an excuse for censorship and surveillance so it can be deployed where it really matters, which is to censor any objections or truth about a multi-billion dollar fraud, crime against humanity and overt global power-grab.

General Elections and Fake News

2017 also sees the UK and then the G7 (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, United States plus the EU) lead the campaign against “fake news”. Conservative MP Damian Collins, presumably in all seriousness, said:

“The danger is, if for many people the main source of news is Facebook and if the news they get on Facebook is mostly fake news, they could be voting based on lies”

MP Damian Collins – https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-39840803

It is extremely important that you only vote based on lies told to you by politicians and mainstream media. You must not be allowed to vote on lies from any random source on Facebook. Damian Collins was considered an “A-list” politician way back in 2006 along with Amber Rudd, Priti Patel and Liz Truss amongst others. Positions he has held include:

• Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee
• Chair of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee
• Chair of the UK Parliament Joint Committee on the Draft Online Safety Bill
• Minister for Tech and the Digital Economy

In 2023 he was appointed Officer of the Order of the British Empire (OBE). Collins is connected to various “fact checker” organisations including Center for Countering Digital Hate who pay him to fly around and speak at their Global Summits.

Interestingly as someone connected to legislation regarding Digital, Culture, Media and Sport he has received “gifts” and “donations” from Channel Four Productions, Sky Ltd, BT Group PLC and various betting related organisations, often in the form of tickets and accommodation for a sporting event. You can see a list of these “gifts” on the TheyWorkForYou website but here are a few highlights…

Of course, none of these “gifts” would in any way be for the purpose of influencing or incentivising anything to do with Damian’s job, connected directly to literally all of these “donors”. Definitely not.

Later in 2017 sees Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and Microsoft release a joint statement announcing the formation of the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism, partnering with the likes of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, the Anti-Defamation League and the Global Network Initiative. This new Forum holds it’s first meeting where Amber Rudd spouts more rhetoric about “terrorists” and “extremists”.

From there a proliferation of fact-checkers, disinformation defences, fake-news debunkers and so on spawns into existence as Governments open the floodgates to near-infinite money to defend democracy by censoring ideas and opinions they don’t like, while long-game Establishment outlets produce policy and guidance on dealing with “disinformation”, such as this 2019 updated effort from the Atlantic Council.

By 2018 the UK House of Lords are debating the issues of “fake news” on social media and Theresa May gives a speech at the WEF meeting in Davos demanding action to stop the flow of open debate and freedom of ideas, quoting a survey claiming “7 in 10 people believe social media companies do not do enough to stop illegal or unethical behaviour on their platforms, prevent the sharing of extremist content or do enough to prevent bullying”. Regarding that statistic, all I can say is they never asked me.

As it happens, much of the chagrin of politicians regarding “fake news” was they were unhappy at being held accountable by mere members of the public for the lies from and damage caused by the Government they are a part of. Clearly this kind of thing must be stopped. The idea of people being able to express their feelings and hold politicians to account is a threat to democracy, obviously.

Matt Hancock, the man with the world’s emptiest tear ducts is by now the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and announces Government intervention to support mainstream media followed by a speech at the Oxford Media Convention where he applauds moves by tech companies like Facebook, Google and Twitter to use algorithms to “promote trusted news” and that they have a “duty of care” to “curate an online world of trust”.

This claim in of itself is “fake news”, as Section 230 of the US Communications Decency Act (CDA) states that “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider”.

The key points of Section 230 include:

• It provides immunity to online intermediaries that host or republish speech.
• It protects website owners from lawsuits if a user posts something illegal, such as defamatory, harmful, or otherwise problematic content.

This is a blatant lie by Hancock and all the other politicians and mouthpieces that demand censorship of words and ideas they don’t like, demanding their partners in the large private tech companies squash the free-speech of their opponents by threatening them with “legislation” and fines for not “protecting people”.

A “duty of care” is a professional obligation to safeguard others while they are in your care. This concept does not exist in respect to technological communication systems. No-one holds the telephone company responsible for nuisance calls, harassing calls, or if “criminals” use the phone to organise any aspect of a crime. They are not responsible for the content, they are only responsible for the communication system itself. The same goes for internet service providers and online content hosting systems, which is what social media is. They are not responsible for content posted by users and Section 230 is the Act that clearly and unambiguously states that.

A good question then is ‘why do they obey?’. These companies are worth trillions and can afford the best legal counsel money can buy, so why don’t they just have their day in court and point out that as long as they do not editorialise, they are not responsible for user-generated content?

The answer is that they obey because the favours, contracts and so on they get from the Governments would vanish if they don’t reciprocate by doing these favours in return. The biggest customers of all the big tech companies are Governments, who hand out billion dollar/pound contracts like confetti. The money these companies make from Joe and Josephine Public is paltry in comparison to the billions and billions they make from Government contracts. There is also the leniency these corporations enjoy with regard to their unethical, monopolistic and predatory business practices, plus other laws in their favour, being able to negotiate away taxes etc. that smaller businesses could never do.

The public/private partnership is just that. Contracts and favours exchanged by both sides of the partnership are how the system works, with the public picking up the tab for all of it.

More, More, More!

As 2018 progresses, there are escalating-in-volume demands for “more” to be done about normal people being able to express themselves as this is a clear threat to an open and transparent democratic society.

Google launch their “Google News Initiative”, the UK’s Counter Disinformation and Media Development programme is represented by Andy Pryce who speaks at the Brussels DisinfoLab along with the Atlantic Council, who shortly thereafter shacked up with Facebook, all in the name of combatting “election-related propaganda and misinformation”.

The “Rapid Response Mechanism” to “support preventative and protective cooperation between G7 countries” was announced later that year at the G7 Summit. One of the main goals is to “to identify and respond to diverse and evolving threats to our democracies, including through sharing information and analysis, and identifying opportunities for coordinated response” according to Wikipedia.

The new UK Council for Internet Safety was set up and the list of organisation that sit on the Executive Board was announced in October 2018. That list looked like this…

• Apple
• BBC
• Childnet
• Children’s Commissioner
• Commission for Countering Extremism
• End Violence Against Women Coalition
• Facebook
• GCHQ
• Google
• ICO
• Independent Advisory Group on Hate Crime
• Internet Matters
• Internet Watch Foundation
• Internet Service Providers and Mobile Operators (rotating between BT, Sky, TalkTalk, Three, Virgin Media, Vodafone)
• Microsoft
• National Police Chiefs’ Council
• National Crime Agency – CEOP Command
• Northern Ireland Executive
• NSPCC
• Ofcom
• Parentzone
• Scottish Government
• TechUK
• Twitter
• UKCIS Evidence Group Chair
• UKIE
• Welsh Assembly

I know if I wanted to feel safe online I’d want exactly that list of corporations and State agencies deciding what I can and cannot access on the internet.

2019 sees Facebook hire third-party factchecking service Full Fact, the Rapid Response Unit gets permanent funding to make sure the Government narrative appears at the top of search rankings, and the Online Harms White Paper is published. The BBC set up their “Trusted News Initiative” after a summit where some of the organisations and partners include:

• AFP
• CBC/Radio-Canada
• The European Broadcasting Union (EBU)
• Facebook
• Financial Times
• First Draft
• Google
• The Hindu
• Microsoft
• Reuters
• The Wall Street Journal

By early 2020 the BBC appoint Marianna Spring as their “Specialist Disinformation and Social Media Reporter”. By then the COVID narrative was fully up and running, and all the apparatus set up over the previous years was deployed, terrorising the public and silencing voices of reason.

By June 2020 the UK Government awarded a contract to “monitor and analyse media coverage of public communications activity across multiple channels, including broadcast, online and social media”.

The media to be monitored and analysed included broadcast, digital, print and social media and research included:

• social media analysis
• media monitoring
• sentiment analysis
• entity level sentiment analysis

The entities who’s sentiment is to be analysed are us. This whole thing was to monitor how people were reacting to the narrative being blasted from all directions, and raise the alarm should there be any dissent. It was a £10 million contract and was awarded to Cision Group Limited, LexisNexis, Onclusive, Press Data Limited and Unicepta UK Limited.

The UK then set up the “Research Centre on Privacy, Harm Reduction and Adversarial Influence“, because there were clearly not enough organisations, coalitions and corporations already tackling online “disinformation” AKA truth about the fraud “pandemic” and the so-called “vaccines”.

In 2021 more tech companies banded together to “address the prevalence of disinformation, misinformation and online content fraud” via the Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity, in an attempt to set up a way of digitally tracking online content back to the person posting it. The “Steering Committee Members” are:

Other members of this coalition include:

• Amazon Web Services (cloud computing/storage provider)
• arm (computer chip maker)
• Canon (image and video tech)
• FujiFilm (image and video tech)
• Infosys (digital services and consulting)
• Nikon (image and video tech)
• Omnicom Group (more on them later)
• Qualcomm (computer chip maker)
• TikTok (social media)

There are many, many more members and you can see them all on the C2PA membership page.

The Commission for Countering Extremism produced a report whining about “how many hateful extremists are able to operate lawfully”. The sheer nonsense on show here is off the charts, given that laws against hate and extremism already exist therefore by their own definition if it is legal then it cannot be “extremist” or “hateful”, and by this time all the alleged Islamic extremists were hiding behind their sofas wearing 3 masks and awaiting their Government injections to protect them from the sniffles. The only “hateful extremists” being complained about here were people with the temerity to exercise their medical freedom and point out the blatantly obvious truth about what a scam the whole thing was.

There were so many declarations, programmes, conferences and summits claiming to be boosting online safety, tackling online harm and countering disinformation that one can only suppose it became difficult for attendees to decide which ones to show up to, the choice presumably made by seeing who offered the best perks.

Published on the 23rd April 2022 on the Sky News website is an article titled “New EU power to fine big tech billions in crackdown on hate speech, disinformation and harmful content”.

It’s funny how using the term “big tech” gets you labelled as a “Conspiracy Theorist” if you’re unhappy about the data-harvesting and censorship of free-speech, but the MSM use it when celebrating Government censorship via financial incentives for “big tech” to “crackdown” on average people having thoughts and expressing them. Again, you literally couldn’t make it up.

OmniGov

There are way more contracts, initiatives and coalitions that form the Great Narrative machine, but final mention should go to Omnicom. Back in 2018 when Theresa May was setting up her “Rapid Response Mechanism”, Omnicom were awarded a contract. The main purpose of this contract was to…

Provide central government (and the wider public sector) with a new, open and transparent approach for the media buying agency, to provide the best possible outcomes for communication campaigns whilst providing value for the taxpayer. The successful media buying agency is capable of providing excellent customer service, as well as delivering value for money. They will work in partnership with media buying agencies to deliver the media buying aspect of fully integrated campaigns for government.

https://www.contractsfinder.service.gov.uk/notice/b40d897d-5b25-47b7-9871-f297df9328da

Omnicom is a US multinational corporation, and in the UK their operations are run by Omnicom Media Group UK Limited, previously known as OMD UK Group Limited. An old company listing entry on the Hubbqa website (archive) for OMD shows this little overview of what they provide:

To help navigate the road to a ‘new normal’, learning from, and acting upon data signals at scale and speed is crucial. Complementing our holistic marketing operating system Omni, and our guiding end-to-end process OMD Design, we have deepened our rapid response capabilities for the current environment by developing a proprietary Fast Start Dashboard and Act Fast Framework. Our proprietary dashboard combines multiple data sources, fueling more informed decisions while providing a single version of the truth on emerging trends & opportunities. The unique Act Fast Framework provides the roadmap to navigate these complex decisions now & in the weeks and months ahead.

https://hubb.qa/services/company/view/10120723/

This £800,000,000 contract awarded to Omnicom certainly delivered. Combining with the BBC’s “Trusted News Initiative” Omnicom created OmniGov, something that they are “immensely proud” of, being the HM Government’s single partner to deliver “HMG ambitions through communications”.

All the catchy slogans and media campaigns carefully designed to ignore all the scientific evidence and instil maximum fear and guilt into populations was all OmniGov. That was their job after all, to “provide the best possible outcomes for communication campaigns”, but of course the best possible outcome was not with the public’s interests at heart, but the Government’s and naturally, Omnicom’s.

This contract was awarded in 2018, the foundations for all the censorship were laid several years before that, and it all came together just in time for the COVID show. If anyone is still in doubt this was planned years in advance, it’s because they don’t want to know or admit it.