NUDGED TO DEATH - The Insidious use of Nudging in the UK

Where nudging is deployed, the harms it can cause, but more importantly some of the regulations and laws it may break - including the provisions of the Terrorism Act 2000

Before we dive into nudging, let’s start off with some of the UK’s comprehensive framework of anti-terrorism legislation. Below are key provisions of the same:

1. Terrorism Act 2000

The cornerstone of UK anti-terror legislation is the Terrorism Act 2000, this Act provides a broad definition of terrorism and establishes various offenses related to terrorist activities. Key provisions include:

• Definition of Terrorism: The act defines terrorism as the use or threat of action designed to influence the government or intimidate the public for the purposes of advancing a political, religious, or ideological cause

• Preventive Detention: The act allows for the detention of individuals suspected of terrorism-related offenses without charge for up to 14 days, which can be extended in certain circumstances

• Control Orders: The act permits the imposition of control orders on individuals suspected of involvement in terrorism, which can restrict their movements and activities

• Extended Powers for Law Enforcement: It grants police powers to stop and search individuals without a warrant in specific situations, such as during an event deemed a terrorist threat.

2. Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001

This legislation expanded the powers of law enforcement and intelligence agencies significantly. Notable provisions include:

• Detention of Foreign Nationals: The act allowed for the indefinite detention of foreign nationals suspected of terrorism, a provision later deemed incompatible with human rights laws

• Asset Freezing: It enabled the freezing of assets belonging to individuals or organizations suspected of involvement in terrorism

3. Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005

Introduced control orders that can impose restrictions on individuals, such as electronic tagging, curfews, and prohibitions on internet use.

4. Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Act 2020

Introduced tougher sentences for terrorism offenses as well as measures to prevent the early release of terrorist offenders, notably by imposing automatic minimum sentences. Also mandates enhanced monitoring and management of terrorist offenders upon release

I have laid out the above simply so that you get an idea of the breadth of this type of legislation. There is more that I have not mentioned, and I do not need to. It is not my intention to critically analyse the Acts mentioned above, although one could, and in doing so may certainly find that some of their provisions conflict and breach other legislation on our statute books. The broad purpose of me reciting the above is merely to give you an overview of some of the anti-terrorism legislation in the UK, with particular focus on the first Act mentioned. Why will become clear later.

Behavioural Psychology - Understanding the Nudge Unit

The Behavioural Insights Team, (BIT), known as the "Nudge Unit," was established by the Cabinet Office in 2010 to apply behavioural science to public policy. David Halpern was appointed as its Chief Executive, leading the team in early work to develop and implement various ‘behavioural interventions’ across different sectors of life.

The concept of ‘nudging’ involves influencing individuals' behaviour over their choices, without people realising they have been nudged to enter into the choices they end up making. Nudging is therefore a deceptive, insidious and underhand practice - most people do not know they are being nudged into anything. That the UK government created such a unit should surprise no one, given what we have seen over the last decade or so. However, the lack of people that still do not know about nudging is breathtaking.

Images sourced from https://www.bi.team/

Examples of where nudging has been deployed in the UK are many. Here’s a short list so you can see how pervasive nudging has become in everyday life:

• Healthy Eating: Initiatives to encourage healthier food choices in schools and public cafeterias

• Smoking Cessation: Campaigns that use graphic images on cigarette packaging to deter smoking

• Auto-Enrolment in Pensions: Automatic enrolment of employees into pension schemes has increased participation rates.

• Nudging Savings: Programs encouraging saving through default settings in savings accounts

• Smart Meters: Promoting the provisions of real-time energy usage data to households to encourage “reduced energy consumption”

• Energy Labels: Labelling on appliances to push consumers towards “more energy-efficient choices”

• Recycling Programs: Bin designs and placements to promote recycling over general waste disposal (doesn’t it all end up in the same landfill?)

• Speed Reduction: Road signage and visual cues to nudge drivers to adhere to speed limits

• Public Transport Usage: Promotions and reminders to nudge the public to use public transport “to reduce congestion and carbon emissions”

• Government Communications: Messaging that frames information in a way to create a narrative around “the social norm” (e.g., "Most people in your area have already signed up for X or have already had Y") to encourage participation in various things

The Nudge Unit were, of course, involved at every level of public messaging during ‘Covid’ and are infamous for the documents they produced related to the government's response to the same, particularly those that included strategies on communication and public behaviour. One of the strategies suggested was to ‘increase the sense of personal threat’ to encourage compliance with government guidance (political purpose) – (notably not law, just guidance), other strategies deployed were shame – the use of conflating compliance with virtue - and peer pressure - portraying non-compliers to government guidance and messaging as deviants, dangerous and in the minority. The intention behind these approaches was to ‘motivate’ all the UK public to carry out whatever the UK government told them to. This is not just propaganda and mind f***ery, this is next level military grade psychological propaganda and mind f***ery, but more importantly it represents actions taken to fulfil political objectives or ‘political purpose’.  

The nudging strategy adopted during ‘Covid’  obliterated ethical and legal boundaries through its manipulation of people via fear-based messaging. This has had a profound impact on public trust, but more importantly on people’s mental and physical health. Many individuals were plunged into a state of heightened anxiety because of the Nudge Unit’s tactical use of fear language rolled out to force compliance to political and health objectives. Many people sadly remain in this state today and in fact need ‘re-framing’ from it.

Using fear as ‘a tool’, (weapon is more apt), not only crosses moral, ethical and legal boundaries, it also leads to severe adverse health consequences. “A wide body of experimental and epidemiological literature evidences that psychological stress, social isolation, and loneliness have a detrimental effect on multiple health-related outcomes including comorbidity, multimorbidity, and mortality” - see here.  Simply put, heightened anxiety levels, (especially when coupled with isolation such as we saw in lockdown), can lead to chronic stress, mental and physical health issues, exacerbate existing conditions, and have a negative effect on overall well-being for both the short and the long term.

Using fear-based messaging to drive behaviour change is also very effective at promoting social discord and in fact is a key tool to sow this amongst populations, in an effort to drive home acceptance of political objectives and social change. Fear based messaging is polarising and creates distrust and divisions within communities, fostering not only mistrust amongst individuals, but also resentment against institutions engaging in the same. This can lead to the start of a breakdown of society. Fear-driven messaging and propaganda also leads to the stigmatisation of groups or individuals that will not comply with nudging, (remember the screams in MSM during ‘Covid’ for unvaccinated people to be denied medical treatment?), causing social harm, alienation and a breakdown of societal norms and ethics, as non-compliant groups and individuals are routinely ‘othered’ through such tactics, garnering support from social counterparts for the removal of rights and unlawful treatment. This is a dangerous place to get to and you start to see all sorts of laws being broken when this happens – just look at the Equality Act violations of refusal of mask exempt people to shops during ‘Covid’– or the sacking of people that would not take the poke, (who have, unsuccessfully to date, tried to engage in a process to show that this was unlawful). Nudging can also lead to panic buying (lockdown loo roll anyone?), and/or extreme behaviours that damage health and property, creating additional challenges for communities and a breakdown in social cohesion.

The Nudge Unit were responsible for and involved in lots of the messaging around the gene-based poke. They worked with the UK government and its agencies to develop ‘strategies’ aimed at ‘increasing vaccine uptake’. This included ‘crafting communications’ that addressed common and valid concerns and hesitancies about the gene therapy, by emphasising its ‘safety and effectiveness’. In this context nudging had a dreadful consequence – death – as highlighted by the group action against Astra Zeneca commenced by people who took the poke, perhaps because of being nudged to do so.

The Nudge Unit’s approach to mass poking people focused on using behavioural science techniques to ‘encourage positive behaviours’, (why do I feel like being patted here and hearing good doggy), such as ‘driving vaccination’ through framing messages – by presenting it as a personal and community benefit and as a social norm– and by highlighting the increasing number of people getting poked in an attempt create a sense of social approval and a sense that compliance was necessary to remain socially accepted and acceptable.

The broad takeaway from the above is that the Nudge Unit engaged in what was effectively a disgusting propaganda and marketing disinformation campaign targeting the UK public. This is evidenced nowhere better than their strategy of getting those in the government and the health service, as well as household names, to repeatedly say the poke - a pharmaceutical product - was both “safe” and “effective” – two things we now know are false and which have led to excess deaths around the world.

The safe and effective strategy was both clever and wickedly Machiavellian at the same time, because marketing a pharmaceutical product as ‘safe’ is not inherently illegal in the UK in and of itself – rather there are just strict regulations governing how such products can be advertised. Of course, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) oversees these regulations, so I shall say no more – as Debi Evans of UK Column has widely reported on the failure of this agency and those running it, despite its mission statement to “protect and promote public health and patient safety, by ensuring that healthcare products meet appropriate standards of safety, quality and efficacy”.

Given the failure of the MHRA to hold itself to its mission statement, I feel it important to let all those reading this know that prescription-only medicines (POMs) cannot be advertised directly to the public. The Blue Guide provides detailed guidance on advertising and promoting medicines in the UK, outlining what is permissible and what is not. And please note, despite what some may try to say, the Blue Guide regulations on advertising and promoting POM’s, which include vaccines, DO apply during vaccination drives in the UK, and apply to the vaccine that is part of that drive. Furthermore, the Blue Guide regulations apply to ALL vaccines given emergency authorisation by the MHRA, so even though expedited approval is part of the emergency authorisation process, any marketing or promotion of products with emergency authorisation must still comply with the guidelines set out in the Blue Guide ‘to ensure accuracy, honesty, and compliance with regulatory standards’. This is supposed to mean that that any marketing or promotion of vaccines, emergency authorised or not, must always comply with the guidelines set out in the Blue Guide.

For the purposes of the Regulations in the Blue Guide and taken directly therefrom “an advertisement is anything or any activity which is intended to encourage prescription or supply by healthcare professionals and use of medicines by the general public, generally by means of highlighting qualities of the medicine ("product claims"). The definition of “advertisement” in the Regulations gives a non-exhaustive list of examples of activities that are classed as an advertisement, including:

• visits by medical sales representatives,

• the supply of samples,

• the provision of inducements to prescribe or supply medicines, and

•  sponsorship of meetings.

An advertisement is not limited to specific media. It includes articles published in journals, magazines and newspapers, displays on posters and notices, photographs, film, broadcast material, video recording, electronic transmissions and material posted on the internet. Point-of-sale materials, leaflets, booklets and other promotional materials that include specific product claims and which are supplied separately from the product may also be considered advertisements. Words forming part of a soundtrack or video recording are within the definition of advertisement, as is the spoken word”.

All good so far. Except – “there is an exemption from the prohibition on advertising unlicensed medicines in certain public health emergencies including in response to the suspected or confirmed spread of pathogenic agents, toxins, chemical agents or nuclear radiation. This only applies to advertisements for an unlicensed product that have been approved by Health Ministers and are issued as part of a government controlled campaign. Where this applies to company materials, the information requirements that apply to licensed medicines for advertising to the public or to healthcare professionals should be met with the exception of the licence number (see sections 5.5 and 6.4 and Annexes 3 and 4)”

Oh dear.

It gets worse, however, as the UK government and all of its agencies have a neat little get out for their own messaging about vaccines and public health, including issues that relate to safety. You see, the UK government only need to be guided by various regulations and frameworks, as the Blue Guide specifically pertains to the advertising and promotion of POMs primarily by pharmaceutical companies and their marketing practices. It does not bind the UK government, and one can only surmise that this is because the UK government see themselves as being made up of ‘special people’ that have unending powers to exempt themselves from whatever law or regulations they like, regardless of the consequences for the people directly affected by the same.

Even though the UK government is not directly bound by the Blue Guide in the same way that commercial entities are, it IS still required to adhere to principles of transparency, accuracy, and responsibility in public health messaging. This should mean that the UK government comply with broader regulatory frameworks, such as those set by the MHRA and the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), which oversee health-related communications. Broadly speaking, under public health guidelines, any State messaging about vaccines and safety must align with those guidelines and scientific evidence, ensuring that information is ‘accurate and not misleading’. We can ask exactly what ‘scientific evidence’ the UK government had about the safety of a novel gene therapy when it was rolled out as a trial in 2020, but I doubt we will ever get a decent answer. But moreover, given the MHRA is a governmental body, operating under the Department of Health and Social Care how is it in any position to hold the UK government to the standards it is supposed to spearhead, let alone make them accountable for a lack of transparency, accuracy, and responsibility in public health messaging, especially that connected to the poke? It is like asking the UK government to mark its own homework. There is a clear and present conflict of interest.

Houston, we certainly have a problem, don’t we? And one that is only going to be solved by people waking up to the realisation that just because “the government said so” does not mean it is right.

The UK government is accountable to the UK public and must provide truthful and clear information regarding health initiatives - but more importantly the UK government works for US, is not separate from us, and only gets its power through us. This is not going to sink in for people until many in ‘power’ are held accountable for the damage we are now seeing –so we could be a while waiting. But in the meantime, perhaps it will help to state that the overall concept for people to get to grips with is that the UK government are breaking their own obligations, principles, laws and regulations, with some regularity – you know - those laws and regulations that are supposed to govern the behaviour of EVERYONE, and not just the UK tax payer.

One may also be interested to note that the Nudge Unit itself is also not directly bound by the Blue Guide in the same way that pharmaceutical companies and advertisers of POMs are, for the same reasons as set out above. However, when the Nudge Unit engages in health-related messaging or initiatives, it is also expected to adhere to broader principles of accuracy, transparency, and responsibility in communication. This includes ensuring that any messaging about health, such as vaccines and their safety, aligns with established guidance in the Blue Guide. So, whilst the Nudge Unit itself may not be governed by the Blue Guide, it operates within a framework of regulatory expectations that are supposed to promote responsible communication in public health contexts. Thus, the principles of the Blue Guide should inform the work of the Nudge Unit, especially when it relates to messaging about health products or public health interventions. I am going to take a wild guess here that the Nudge Unit have never read the Blue Guide, nor do they care to, and in fact it may even exist at their headquarters as a coffee coaster….

I am going to go one step further here with the Nudge Unit. Some say it is still considered part of the UK government, but its structure has evolved over time. After its establishment by the Cabinet Office in 2010, it became a social purpose company in 2014, operating with a mix of public and private funding. I acknowledge that despite this change, it still collaborates closely with various government departments and retains a strong connection to public policy development, because whilst it operates as an independent entity, its goals align with government objectives and as such it is used as a resource for applying behavioural science to drive political outcomes. However, perhaps it is worth exploring whether the Nudge Unit could be sued for negligence and/or misconduct and face legal action for having engaged in misconduct/negligence in its application of nudging. This would of course depend on circumstances and require a thorough look at the legal framework governing its operations, but certainly many people have been harmed as a result of its messaging throughout ‘Covid’.

If negligence and misconduct are out of the window, then could the Nudge Unit - and the UK government itself by adopting their advice on fear based messaging - be accused of engaging in terrorist activity against the UK public under the Terrorism Act 2000? Remember, under this Act the definition of terrorism is defined as “the use or threat of action designed to influence….. or intimidate the public for the purposes of advancing a political, religious, or ideological cause”

The UK government’s deployment of Nudge Unit’s strategies invoking fear to get compliance raise serious questions about whether such actions contravened – certainly the spirit of - the Terrorism Act 2000. Under the Terrorism Act, one of the primary aims is to prevent actions that intimidate the public. When the government used fear to influence behaviour, it crossed that line and entered into a manipulative regime for political purpose. The psychological impact of this fear led individuals to conform to government directives not out of informed consent, but because of coercion. Not only does this undermine the democratic principle of voluntary compliance, it takes us into the realms of dictatorship - and its bedfellow - state terrorism, because the public is no longer treated as informed citizens but instead as subjects to be controlled through fear.

As to the politcial purposes of the nudging tactics during ‘Covid’, these are fairly easy to define. Nudging involved targeting specific behaviours—like mask-wearing, social distancing and getting poked—presenting them as civic duties, with the clear objective of advancing a political cause (see definition under the Terrorism Act), as well as for personal gain, which notably included:

• advancing State public health ‘policy’ framed as ‘protecting community health’ - inherently political and reflects governmental priorities, resource allocation and ultimately political power over people’s lives

• enriching the contacts of MPs, politically connected suppliers, and even some peers - use of the VIP fast lane made people extremely rich with the High Court eventually ruling that awarding lucrative PPE contracts to those with political connections was unlawful

• political legitimacy - successful vaccination campaigns bolster a government’s ‘legitimacy’ and public approval, especially after the public have been terrified by psychological messaging - as such campaigns market ‘effective leadership and responsiveness’ to a health crisis – garnering political support from the public

• influencing public behaviour towards vaccination – reflecting the political goal of achieving high vaccination rates and assisting in profit making for corporate backers, lobbyists, and the hidden hand of corporate power

Framing anything through a lens of fear is dangerous and borders on being an act of aggression by those using such tactics. Fear leads to societal polarisation, as certain groups are always depicted as irresponsible or dangerous in fear campaigns, fostering stigma and the resentment of those who will not follow the political purpose of the nudge messaging. Nudging tactics therefore deepen societal divides, leading to an environment where communities feel unjustly targeted and vilified, thus undermining social cohesion. What is this if not terrorism?  

Nudging of course plays a big part in the strategy of tension  -  a political tactic used to create a climate of fear and uncertainty, employed by governments and/or state actors to manipulate public perception and behaviour. The strategy of tension typically involves deliberately fostering instability or unrest to achieve specific political objectives – terrorism in a nutshell. You can have a look at some key aspects of the strategy here, a little more about operation Glaido here and note an early day motion in Parliament about Gladio here. If you don’t want to look at all of these links, just know that in its historical context, the strategy of tension is always associated with instances of state-sponsored terrorism and propaganda plays a huge role in covering this up.

Nudging tactics during ‘Covid’ were deployed under the guise of ‘promoting public health’, but their reliance on fear and threat contravenes the principles outlined in the Terrorism Act. By creating an atmosphere of intimidation, the government may have broken its own laws, and even if it didn’t, it certainly undermined democratic values and societal trust. When individuals are driven to compliance through threats, they are being abused - they are being terrorised. The UK government engaging in these tactics may not only be illegal, but most definitely has weakened beyond repair the social contract between itself and its citizens, raising questions about its legitimacy. It therefore seems that it really is only a matter of time before more people notice this.

For a fuller critique of nudging during ‘Covid’ you might wish to read this article.