Rupert Sherbert Blank MP is a fictional name for a real MP, my MP.

Disguising his identity and political affiliation, I am writing to him about my concerns of the day and am interested in his reply. Or non-replies, wherein I supply my own and have a bit of a laugh.

Seriously, though, this is the way things are supposed to work - but does it really work at all? 

The first few entries are below, to give you a flavour.

Buy the yearly publication.  The 2021 edition is available here.

                                                          And the 2022 edition here.

Buy me a cup of coffee here to support this project

Monday 2 November 2020

Attn: Rupert Sherbert Blank MP

Dear Rupert,

Thanks for taking the time to read this.

Covid 19. A virus now shown to be similar to the flu, with a similar mortality rate. 99.9% survivable by the majority. Only fatal to those with co-morbidities, with a high chance of pulling through, even then, given appropriate treatment. Numbers comparable to other flu seasons, less than other pandemics.

Masks, social distancing, scientific censorship, offcom censorship, internet censorship, loneliness, mental illness, economic collapse, unemployment, virtually closed GPs, virtually closed dentists, abandonment by the legislature of its responsibilty, an executive governing by diktat, schools barely functioning, the undermining of policing by consent and the rule of law, a health service protected from use and discriminatory against the elderly (those most at risk and those who have personally paid most into said service), a timebomb backlog of cancelled NHS treatments, Lockdowns quarantining the well instead of the sick for the first time in history, a future level of debt unimaginable in peacetime.

Can you tell me your position on the Government reation to Covid 19 and what risk assessments were undertaken?

Yours sincerely,

Dan

My MP did not reply. Here's Rupert!

Dearest, dearest Dan,

As valued constituent, I felt I owed you a reply.

Firstly, - my, my, my! Who got out of bed on the wrong side, this morning? A little word to the wise, sleep is important. It may be tempting to try to run on only eight or nine hours a night but, trust me, it takes it's toll. You sound stressed. Try to get at least eleven hours regularly and delegate properly. If you start your morning making your own breakfast, it'll be all downhill from there!

You've made a long list there. Really, an excellent example of a list. Superb.

Remember: Stay at home. Stay safe. Save lives.

That's my favourite list of all time.

The Government's position on Covid-19 (though what it's got to do with you, I don't know) is hiding behind the SAGE committee sofa.

I hope that helps, you darling child.

Yours sincerely,

Rupert Sherbert Blank MP

P.S. SAVE THE NHS!!!! FOR GOD'S SAKE SAVE THE NHS!!!!

Wednesday 25 November 2020

Attn: Rupert Sherbert Blank MP

Wednesday 25 November 2020

Dear Rupert,

Thanks for taking the time to read this.

The UK's terrorism threat level has recently been raised to 'severe' after Islamic terrorist attacks in France, and elsewhere.

In light of the reasons for these attacks (the beheadings of innocents observing the 'wrong' faith or teaching the 'wrong' subjects) might it not be a good idea for a cross-party declaration defending free speech as President Macron has done? Free speech being the cornerstone of Western civilisation and democracy.

We currently have a record number of muslim MPs.

Afzal Khan, Manchester Gorton
Rosena Allin-Khan, Tooting
Rupa Huq, Ealing Central & Acton 
Tulip Siddiq, Hampstead & Kilburn
Mohammed Yasin, Bedford
Khalid Mahmood, Birmingham Perry Barr
Imran Hussein, Bradford East
Naz Shah, Bradford West 
Shabana Mahmood, Birmingham Ladypool
Yasmin Qureshi, Bolton South East 
Rushanara Ali, Bethnal Green & Bow
Tahir Ali, Birmingham Hall Green
Zarah Sultana,Coventry South
Apsana Begum,Poplar & Limehouse
Sajid Javid, Bromsgrove
Nusrat Ghani, Wealden
Rehman Chishti, Gillingham & Rainham 
Saqib Bhatti,Meriden
Imran Ahmad Khan, Wakefield

If a declaration defending the values of free speech were to be headed by these MPs, then it would vividly demonstate how the British culture of open enquiry, toleration of views and pursuit of critical thinking will allow anyone of ability to rise to the top of the country's law-making elite.

If lives are at stake, as they must be given the threat level, then it seems sensible to follow the French example.

I would appreciate your views on such a declaration.

Yours sincerely,

Dan

Shockingly, my MP did not reply. Here's Rupert!

Dear Dan,

Let me make it quite clear, I am terrified by by the increased level of terror implied by the increase in the terrorism level threat, and you should be too.

However, at least we don't live in France.

Free speech is all very well and I support it.  However, speech that causes offense is hate speech, not free speech.  I am all for speech that I agree with but speech that upsets me is illegal.  In my book, questioning my expenses, or my morals, or my religion is out of bounds, Praise Allah.

As a devout Christian, I can tell you that our history is chock-a-block with beheadings.  Have you heard of the Spanish Inquisition or Henry the Eighth?  I would keep your head down if I were you (I'm not suggesting that humourously.  Humour is  very often hate speech, of course, and I would not be a party to that).

The cornerstone of Western Democracy is now Covid-19, for your information.

When you say 'allow anyone of ability to rise to the top of the country's law-making elite' what you really mean is even muslims.  No-one should be grateful to the society that allows them to get to the top.  They got there despite society.  And so did I.

I cannot quite understand why you think our muslim MP's should stand up for British values, though.  Haven't they been through enough? Why should they be singled out?  Have you got some kind of a problem? Are you a racist?

Kindest regards,

Rupert Sherbert Blank MP 

Wednesday 2 December 2020

Attn: Rupert Sherbert Blank MP

Dear Rupert,

Thanks for taking the time to read this.

In light of your vote for the new coronavirus restrictions on 1/12/20, can you tell me how you responded to the briefing paper submitted to MPs on 29/11/20 by Clare Craig BM BCh FRCPath, Jonathan Engler MBChB LLB, Mike Yeadon BSc Hons (Biochem-tox) PhD (Pharmacol) and Christian McNeill LL.B and Dip LP?

This paper states that: PCR-testing is unfit for mass implementation. Testing those without symptons is a nonsense. The false-positive rate is so high as to be creating a pseudo-epidemic. The definition of COVID deaths is too broad. Not all excess deaths are COVID related. Unecessary self-isolation is leading to a NHS staffing crisis. The only confirmatory testing in Liverpool, using the Lateral Flow Test, has shown no Covid. The LFT is a far superior test, which is highlighting the failure of PCR. The results of PCR testing do not fit reality on the ground.

A lockdown based on testing is not needed and actually makes the situation worse.

Can you also point me towards the evidence you did use to inform your vote, so that I can better understand your decision?

Yours sincerely,

Dan

THIS IS THE ACTUAL REPLY, WITH RUPERT SUBSTITUTED FOR MY MP'S REAL NAME.

Dear Dan,

Thank you very much for your email.

I am afraid I am unaware of this briefing submitted by Ms Craig and Mr Engler so am unaware of their findings or recommendations.

When voting yesterday, I based my decision on the arguments put forward by the Government and various MPs.

While I agree the tiered system is not perfect, it is a workable solution that allows people to clearly understand restrictions in their area.

I am happy to take a look at the briefing you mention if you have a copy of it, and will pass them on to my ministerial colleagues.

With kind regards,

Rupert

MY REACTION

Well.....I got a reply, at least.

Rupert isn't aware of the briefing.  Well, can't read everything, I suppose.  And he'll pass it on.  That's good, I suppose.

When voting, he based his decision on the arguments put forward by the Government and various MPs.  Ah. 

No mention of evidence.  For a lockdown of the healthy that destroys the country and has no evidence of it's own to endorse it.  Not too good, Rupert.

And nobody clearly understood the tier system.  Not even on a good day.  Not even on the first day.

Rupert gets 2 out of 10. 1 for answering and 1 for passing on the evidence that he did not know about but I did.  Which one of us was voting again?

Tuesday 8 December 2020

Attn: Rupert Sherbert Blank MP

Dear Rupert,

Thanks for taking the time to read this.

Re: E-petition 323442. Prevent any restrictions on those who refuse a Covid-19 vaccination. Parliamentary briefing on Monday 14, December 2020.

Please can I ask that you consider adding your weight to supporting the above petition in the upcoming session?

In a public document (Reg 174 Information for UK Healthcare Professionals), published before the vaccine rollout, it states that 'It is unknown whether Covid-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 has an impact on fertility.'

The vaccine has been produced in record time. You might almost say rushed.

The companies involved have been given a legal indemnity, protecting them from being sued.

NHS staff are also protected from legal action arising from mis-management of the vaccine.

At the height of the pandemic, between the 1st of March and the 30th of June, the ONS reports that of the deaths involving Covid-19 in England and Wales, 91.1% had at least one pre-existing condition. The survival rate overall for the population was over 99%. There is no valid reason to compel people to take a vaccine that presents so low a threat.

The experience of human experimentation during World War Two shows the importance of a human being having the right to ultimate control over his or her own body.

The experience of Thalidomide shows the importance of a human being having the right to ultimate control over his or her health. No-one should be sanctioned for exercising that right.

Yours sincerely,

Dan

MY MP'S ACTUAL REPLY

Dear Dan,

Thank you very much for your email.

I understand that there are no plans by the UK Government to make vaccination compulsory and those who do not wish to be vaccinated do not have to.

The Pfizer vaccine has been trialled by over 40,000 people, which has allowed the vaccine to be deployed faster than ordinary trials, which often take longer due to a lack of volunteers.

There are exemptions for people who are ill or pregnant already to mitigate the risk as was demonstrated during the Thalidomide disaster.

I have been reassured that the vaccine is safe and look forward to receiving my own when the time is right.

With kind regards,

Rupert.

MY REACTION

Elllo Rupert! Despite how underwhelming the replies have been so far, it is good to get one. 

Straightaway, I notice that Rupert has tacitly declined to add his weight to anything.

The vaccine has been trialled (tested on) by 40000 people.  Over 10 months. Just look up testing for all other vaccines and tell me if you think that's enough.  It might be safe, I can concede that.  But it's a guess, isn't it?  And we all have to have it, not just the vunerable.

Theoretically, there is an excemption for everyone who does not want to take the vaccine. But we all know about the societal pressure being exerted here.  Is there a chance of infertility for the young who take it? Or worse? Have you heard anyone staking their reputation on saying there isn't?

And, big sigh.......Covid 19 isn't all that dangerous to the already healthy.

So, Mr Blank. You get a 1 out of 10 for replying

Saturday 9th January 2021

Attn: Rupert Sherbert Blank MP

Saturday 9 January 2021

Dear Rupert,

Thanks for taking the time to read this.

Its time for our elected MPs to make a case for the equation COVID-19 = PLAGUE. Only a contagious threat on the level of the black death can justify the Government's present policy. However, a threat on that level would not need Government coercion, would it? Statutory instruments would be irrelevant before the threat. We would all hide in our houses out of common sense.

The lack of proportion is staggering.

Sir Edward Leigh MP of your own party asked the Prime Minister how the public can be asked to endure a third lockdown in light of the fact that less than 400 people under 60 have died from the virus. Out of a population of 60 million plus.

The Prime Minister did not address the numbers.

The lack of proportion is staggering.

In **********, there have been 9 deaths from COVID since last March.From a population 0f 11000. That's a 0.09% death rate. In ************, there has been 1 death from COVID since last March. From a population of 18000. That;s a 0.006% death rate.

I am largely unable to leave my house based on these numbers.

I am unable to visit my family in ********* based on these numbers.

The numbers are taken from the ONS

(https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/causesofdeath /articles/deathsinvolvingcovid19interactivemap/2020-06-12).

The lack of proportion is staggering.

You're my elected MP. I voted for you. You need to tell people like me why I should be frightened of COVID-19.

You need to correct my maths (should be easy) and show me where the plague is. Not tests, not cases, not models, but the deadly COVID-19.

Then check out this website, https://www.victimsoflockdown.com/, and show me that it is proportionate.

Yours sincerely,

Dan

THIS IS THE ACTUAL REPLY, WITH RUPERT SUBSTITUTED FOR MY MP'S REAL NAME.

Dear Dan,  

Thank you for your email regarding the latest national lockdown.  

I am pleased that in ************** the number of cases have been generally low, with only a few serious outbreaks in places such as ***********.  

However what we have seen over the Christmas period and into the new year is the number of cases remaining at a very high rate, and the death rate continuing to be quite alarming.

The primary reason for introducing further lockdown measures is to one, reduce the rate of infection so that the R rate drops below 1, meaning the spread of the virus is shrinking instead of growing.

The second reason is that of NHS capacity. As I am sure you are all too aware, hospitals right across the UK have been near maximum capacity and without introducing restrictions there is a very real fear that this would spill over capacity.  

As MP, I could not in good conscious vote to remove lockdown restrictions when hospitals are near capacity and lives would be at risk.  

I understand the frustration felt by many, including myself, at the nature of lockdowns and the disruption they have caused to our lives. However with the rapid rollout of the vaccine, and death and new infection instances falling, I remain hopeful that the worst of the virus is behind us and things can begin to return to normal.  

Thank you once again for writing to me. I hope this helps explain my views and the logic for introducing lockdowns.  

With kind regards,

Rupert

MY REACTION

Rupert replied!  Or was it a cut and paste job?

No mention of excess deaths.  None.  All cases, all R rates.

NHS capacity trotted out, without context.  It's winter.  ICUs are always full but that does not mean overrun, rather it is best practice to maximise their usefulness.  Capacity is dependant on staff, who are self-isolating (asymptomatically, mostly, with an illness that is over 99% survivable). The Nightingale Hospitals were never used.

In the same letter, Rupert says deaths are falling and infections are down! Sort of undermines his logic, which his letter hasn't explained at all.

Rupert, like the Prime Minister, left the numbers that I stated alone and did not balance the Plague equation.

Sorry, old boy! 1 out of 10.  You managed to answer.

Tuesday 19th January 2021

Att:  Rupert Sherbert Blank MP

Dear Rupert,

Thanks for taking the time to read this letter.

As I understand it, the requirement for mask mandates has to be reviewed by the Secretary of State before the end of the period six months after they came into force. They came into force on July 24th 2020 (well after the pandemic peak), so need to be reviewed by January 23rd 2021.

40 years of study have not produced definate conclusions about the benefits of masks, even those used by surgeons in operations. Scientific authorities (Fauci, WHO et al) all pronounced them unecessary at the start of the COVID 19 crisis, based on those 40 years of study. The only study during the crisis, The Danish Mask Study, found there were no benefits to wearing masks. Then, of course, there is a wide difference in the quality of masks used. The study used “high-quality surgical masks with a filtration rate of 98%”. I doubt this is the case with the vast majority of the general public.

https://swprs.org/danish-mask-study-no-benefit/
https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817

Please stop the compulsory wearing of masks. They cause social division, have unknown consequenses for dental and respiratory health, are mentally corosive for the young and old alike (it is an inherent part of our society to see and respond to facial cues) and invite a cultural OCD that weakens the ability of all to take the risks needed to assure our quality of life.

Locking the people in their homes is wrong. The compulsory wearing of masks when they dare venture out is the cruelty of twisting the knife. Please at least stop that cruelty.

Yours sincerely,

Dan

My MP did not reply. Here's Rupert!

Dear Dan,

Thank you so much for your letter.  

I'm afraid it has made me rather emotional.  I will never, ever give up masks!  Never! 

As I read your hilariously neurotic correspondance, I laugh under my mask, and nobody knows.  I stick my tongue out at old ladies, and nobody knows. I leer at young girls, and nobody knows.  I dribble, burp and grin, and nobody knows.

Masks are the greatest!

And you want to take that away from me? Over 40 years of study has shown that politicians don't give back powers that they have been given.  Y'know the old joke - how do you tell if a politician is lying?  Now you can't see my lips moving, one way or the other!  This is paradise!

Masks with a filtration rate of 98% are easy to come by.   Just depends what you want to filter. Mine filters 98% of human interaction with constituents....so get used to the new normal because I'm never giving that up!

Cultural OCD?  I bet you felt very clever when you thought that up. Like we did when we thought up Covid.

I'm not mocking you.  Under this mask, I'm wearing a caring, understanding, nuturing expression.

Honest.

Yours sincerely,

Rupert Sherbert Blank MP

Tuesday 9 February 2021

Attn: Rupert Sherbert Blank MP

Dear Rupert,

Thanks for taking the time to read this.

I am writing because our country is sliding towards a permenant state of lockdown. This, in itself, is a dire state of affairs. Within it, though, is something worse. I believe in the two party system of representative government. This, as you know, places my elected representative between me and my government. This gives me a stake in my country and provides my government a mandate based on my consent to be governed through this system.

At present, my elected representative (as in every other constituency) is missing in action: i.e. the legislature is inactive. There is no real reason to lobby my MP regarding the proposed lawmaking of the executive when my MP is not afforded the opportunity of voting on any proposed legislation. This not only removes my MP, it also removes me.

There are only a few short steps between this state of affairs and a rescinding of the consent to be governed. The late Sir Roger Scuton said, 'Without freedom there cannot be government by consent; and it is the freedom to participate in the process of government, and to protest against, dissent from, and oppose the decisions that are made in my name, that confer on me the dignity of citizenship.'

The dignity of citizenship is exactly what is being denied us.

A case-in-point has recently been raised by Dr John Fanning, Senior Lecturer in Tort law at the University of Liverpool. He states that Schedule 21 of the 2020 Coronavirus Act contains powers that the state can deploy against “potentially infectious persons”.

'This means that  a person who refused to submit to a doorstep test could potentially be arrested, taken to a suitable facility, and required by law to undergo COVID-19 testing. The imagery this evokes is utterly chilling; the Coronavirus Act is like a dystopian fantasy in statutory form. There are few laws on the books that can rival it.'

These are the Doctor's words.

My MP needs to be between me and legislation like this.

Scruton added, 'The difference between the West and the rest is that Western societies are governed by politics; the rest are ruled by power.'

Which catagory does the Coronavirus 2020 Act fall into?

Yours sincerely,

My MP Replied

Dear Dan,  

Thank you very much for your email regarding the current lockdown situation and the concerns you have about democratic oversight.  

I should start off by saying that the House of Commons is not inactive and members are still partaking in the legislative process with hybrid proceedings in Parliament.

I have had the pleasure to speak in various debates during this latest lockdown and am still able to vote for or against matters in the House.

For example this Thursday I hope to speak in the General Debate on Wales which is an annual event which coincides with St David’s Day, which continues undeterred.  

Of course, in Wales coronavirus regulations are decided by the Senedd, which still sits and discuses their laws and motions, committees still sit and the business of Government has continued despite the restrictions that affect our lives.

I hope you share my optimism that the UK Government have announced a roadmap out of lockdown and the Devolved Authorities have also announced steps they are taking to exit lockdowns.  

While these times are difficult for us all, the light is at the end of the tunnel and I look forward for this being behind us.  

With kind regards,

Rupert

MY REACTION

This was like a bad passport photo - my letter makes me cringe.  But I meant it.

Rupert didn't seem to take it seriously. He's speaking in debates.  Ace!  He's voting! Ace! But on what? Nothing of consequense, or he would have brought them up instead of the General Debate on Wales, which looks like an excuse to pig out on bara-brith.  It continues undeterred!

But Wales handles it's own crap, so don't blame me.

Rupert - all the new regulations are bumped through via statutory orders off of the 1984 Health Act, precisely so they can't be held up by the legislative process, and to avoid a periodic review that could end them.

You get 1 point for replying and get it deducted for being a crippling coward stuck in the wrong job - a job you're destroying, along with your country. Sorry, old chap, for coming down so hard, but you took the specifics of my crummy letter and flushed 'em rather than answering them.

Friday 12 March 2021

Attn: Rupert Sherbert Blank MP

Dear Rupert,

Thanks for taking the time to read this.

On Monday 15th of March, MPs will be debating vaccine passports in response to an internet petition.

In December of last year, you responded to my concerns over compulsory vaccinations and stated that the UK Government had no plans for this.

Vaccine passports are clearly a way for our government to outsource responsibility for mandating vaccinations.

Since the imposition of lockdown last year, the UK government has slavishly followed the playbook of the CCP.

On Wednesday, the Chinese dictatorship (which first covered up Covid-19 and then exported it to the world, incurring no penalty except being the only country to increase it's GDP in 2020) launched its domestic vaccine passport and has urged the WHO to let it build and run a global database.

This is social credit scoring.

Bad enough to have it in a country that abuses it's citizens, mentally and physically. But do we want it here, in free, democratic society? It's getting harder and harder to make the distinction between the two nations. I am still under lockdown - no-one in Wuhan is.

The survival rate from Covid-19 is over 99% overall.

The average age of death from Covid-19 is 84. UK life expectancy is 81.

Please go to the debate and tell them that we are not China. If you can't do that, why not?

Yours sincerely,

Dan

MY MP REPLIED

Dear Dan,

Thank you for contacting me about vaccine passports, or COVID status certification.

I am incredibly proud of the progress that the UK is making in vaccinating the population, with one in three adults receiving their first dose, and I am delighted that the Government reached the goal of offering a vaccine to priority groups 1-4, over 15 million people, by 15 February.

While I understand that a range of options are being considered to encourage people to receive the vaccine, the Government does not plan to make the COVID-19 vaccination mandatory.

As set out in the Government’s Roadmap towards easing restrictions, four programmes of work have been established to consider different aspects of how the UK should handle COVID-19 from summer onwards. One of these is a review into whether COVID-status certification could play a role in reopening our economy, reducing restrictions on social contact and improving safety.

Of course, COVID-status certificates raise complex ethical and discriminatory issues that would need to be worked through.

This is something I know the Government and the Prime Minister are conscious of and I welcome the fact that the Government is considering these issues fully as part of the review.

I have noted the concerns you have raised, which I will ensure ministers are made aware of throughout the review process.

It is right that we rule out no options at this stage.

Conclusions and the outcome of the review will be set out in advance of Step four of the Roadmap.

As the Prime Minister has said, it may be that there is a role for certification in the future, but for now the emphasis is rightly on our vaccination and testing programmes.

Thank you again for taking the time to contact me.

Best wishes, Rupert

Share this page