Free pic of Chris Whitty if you can pick out Jonathan.

The head of a law firm is so sceptical of the Covid pandemic that he stuck up a sign on his firm's front door banning anyone who entered from wearing a mask.

Jonathan Lea trained at Clyde & Co and was a corporate solicitor at firms including Hammonds (now Squire Patton Boggs) before he founded The Jonathan Lea Network in 2013.

Last week he posted a sign on his firm's office door ordering people to take off their masks if they wanted to enter. 

"All masks do is perpetuate completely irrational fear", read Lea's sign. "Anything that causes people to enter into un-Godly fear and compliance to tyranny is demonic".

It continued, "If there really was a dangerous virus out there, a mask could be largely ineffective", and "multiple scientific reports state a mask is about as useful as a pair of speedos preventing a kid peeing in the pool".

In fact, Lea's sign notified visitors, masks are "a health hazard that deprive us of oxygen" and Covid vaccines are "unsafe and life debilitating".

J Lea sign

Unfortunately reading the whole sign reduces your life expectancy as much as the scamdemic vaccines.

Lea told RollOnFriday he put up his sign after the manager of his serviced offices posted notices recommending people wear masks in the communal areas, and everyone "started obediently walking around with bits of cloth on their face".

When a client from another office in the building walked into Lea's firm with a mask on it "sent me over the edge and led to the sign", said the lawyer.

However, Lea's call to arms "only lasted a couple of days before our serviced office managers took it down", he said.

As an active participant on social media, Lea frequently broadcasts his doubts around the government’s response to Covid, the danger of the virus, and the safety of vaccines.

"Get used to living in your lounge slaves", Lea wrote on LinkedIn in reference to the latest lockdown in England.

Commenting on the news that medics were seeking to be protected from unlawful killing charges, he told his followers, "They take mindless orders like good little soldiers and are in shock when they’re left holding the flaming bag of 💩...They clearly want to have protection from killing people with the vaccine".

In October Lea reposted a message by another sceptic which stated, "If you want your life back, stop complying. Don't get a test, don't wear a mask, don't download the app, don't watch the news and social media for hours on end. Start to live again - there is nothing to fear".

In autumn Lea posted an open letter to Boris Johnson alongside a chart of Covid deaths in the UK showing how they had tapered off.

"Dear Mr Johnson

If people aren't dying...which they're not

And people aren't going to hospital..which they're not

And people aren't ill..which they're not.....

...then why should we care about 'cases' at all?

It's been weeks now that I've seen restaurants and pubs packed with maskless oldies happily socialising. Where are the dead grannies?!?!"

Infections subsequently increased and by January the UK had the highest Covid death rate in the world. (Allegedly, sheeple.)

lea letter

Lea said his staff were allowed to work from home, and were all following government guidance. "We are an open, inclusive and supportive firm and if anyone for any reason thought they'd like to wear something on their face, or have a vaccine, there would be no issue", he said.

"While the team clearly know where I stand on the scamdemic, we are all free to express and discuss different opinions".

Tip Off ROF


Scep Tick 22 January 21 09:36

The Jonathan Lea Network

Great debut album, never quite followed up their promise.

Anonymous 22 January 21 09:46

Vote Corbyn!


Piers... obviously.

Anon 22 January 21 09:46

Good old Clydes.  In the news again for the wrong reasons. 

Anon 22 January 21 09:52

I find this kind of nonsense, from supposedly educated people, pretty offensive knowing people who work in our hospitals saving the life of idiots like this once they catch COVID.

Stop embarrassing yourself!

Anon 22 January 21 09:57

This is so embarrassing. In fact, it is embarassing to be considered part of the British public these days, with idiots like this spouting off so much rubbish. Stick to your legal practice mate, I'm sure someone so ahead of the times like yourself will be overtaking Big Law soon.... 

Iagree 22 January 21 10:05

My wife a virologist. She graduated top of her class at a great Canadian university and is considered to be an expert in her field.  I showed her the article and she agrees with what he is saying. She says a lot of the experts do. There was a study in Sweden which showed that wearing a mask had no affect on the transfer of the disease. The environment created around the mouth and nose with saliva getting trapped in the mask, and with frequent adjustments of the masks with the hands of the wearer, transferring germs from the hands to the face, actually in the view of many scientists makes the wearer more susceptible and can make disease more likely. Wearing a mask has become so political that no one is allowed to challenge whether it helps or not. 

Anonymous 22 January 21 10:06

@09:57 - I agree with most of what you say, but suspect that you may be falling into a trap of thinking that this is somehow unique to the 'British Public'.

Do you imagine, for example, that the French Public are entirely without individuals who vocally share this kind of thinking? 

Lydia 22 January 21 10:18

Masks are awful. I cannot wait until they are abolished in shops! We can all have different views still in the UK, just about. There is no way out of this so either we have these measures for ever or move them to a voluntary basis. I favour the latter but the High Court decided against the challenge to the lockdown laws and Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal from I think it was the CA. So there we are.


It was not ultra vires to say we cannot leave our houses, get married etc etc...

Crackington 22 January 21 10:26

Bringing pseudo-religious ranting into the office is deucedly unprofessional.

Anyway, what about those of us who like demonic things? Where’s the diversity?

Anonymous 22 January 21 10:27

I've met Jonathan at networking events over the years. He's a nice chap. I don't agree with him on this, but I respect his right to have a view on it. There are differing opinions - it doesn't seem that long ago that the UK government was telling us that masks weren't needed.

I'm sure he'll be delighted to have a platform like ROF for his views to be published! 

HeAintWrong 22 January 21 10:29

Ultimately, we want to live in a society with free choice. Jonathan is absolutely free to run his business however he pleases; if you don’t want to do business with him then you are free not to. The worrying state of affairs is where the officials clamp down on this freedom and enforce financial sanctions because this freedom threatens their agenda. Masks do cause more harm than good (I am free to believe this) and the indoctrination of mask wearing and vaccination is just one step closer to absolute controls - you will soon be unable to trade unless you meet a set of requirements that an arbitrary room of gentlemen in office have deemed essential. Why do they have the say over how we live our lives? This is a slow and concerning manipulation that will lead to total and complete governmental control; one day we’ll wake up and wonder how we ended up in a communist dictatorship. But the people are screaming for their freedoms to be stripped away. Madness. It stopped being about health about a year ago. Covid is a real virus, the control and propaganda is a whole ‘nother level of insanity. 

Anonymous 22 January 21 10:47

I don't think he's right on this. But when you have the Torygraph and public figures like Sumption spouting their anti-lockdown agenda, you can see how people can be led to follow that side of the argument 

Anonymous 22 January 21 11:15

Is he a regular on the discussion board? I recognise some of that rhetoric.

Anonymous 22 January 21 11:16

Everything aside, the medical professional has been wearing masks for a century now. People working with toxic chemicals, e.g. cleaners, scientists/researchers, engineers, hairdressers, builders have been wearing protective masks for decades. The beauty industry has been wearing masks for hygiene reasons.

And NOW that the general public have to wear a mask for half an hour to do their shopping, suddenly, it's limiting their freedom. Like how entitled and selfish can you get? Even if for a century we have been wrong, even if medical science has been wrong for all this time - would it really hurt you? It's a short duration of your life, short duration of your time with a consequence of potentially saving someone's life. Can you please understand how to conduct a risk analysis! Especially as a lawyer, you should understand how this works. 

Also, no, it isn't anyone's 'right' to walk into any place they want without wearing a mask. That place can stop you from entering its premises for a lot of other things even before this pandemic. 

Client of Jonathan Lea Network 22 January 21 11:17

I am fine with lockdown because my financial situation and mental health isn't really affected by it.

But I also recognise that not everybody is in the same boat when it comes to lockdown. Many businesses have gone under or are in a dire situation, people are having serious mental health issues, important hospital treatment such as cancer operations are being put on hold. This is the background to those wanting an end to lockdown (even if we don't agree with all their reasoning and arguments). Jonathan is entitled to his opinion, even if he does like to shout it from the rooftops a bit too often! And I agree with @Anonymous 10.27 -I think he'll be very pleased with the RollOnFriday publicity!! 

Anonymous 22 January 21 11:20

"Wearing a mask has become so political that no one is allowed to challenge whether it helps or not."

Of course people can challenge it. He has, very publicly.  But if they are rattling off unsubstantiated crap or pontificating on an area outside their technical competence, we are free to point out what prats they are.

Your argument is akin to people screaming about their free speech being oppressed in national papers and on Twitter.

Anonymous 22 January 21 11:22

@10:29 - what about the freedom of others he works with to behave differently?  Fine if he doesn't insist for instance if he allows his PA to drop work at his door, but otherwise he's using his position of power to enforce his personal beliefs on others.

Anonymous 22 January 21 11:24

‘Your argument is akin to people screaming about their free speech being oppressed in national papers and on Twitter’

i don’t agree with Jonathan but I also think you are naive if you think people aren’t being cut out of huge forums if they aren’t in lockstep with the views of the progressives who control those forums. 

Anonymous7779 22 January 21 11:35

Absolutely ghastly fellow. I have friends and family working in the NHS working OT hours, and having to cancel operations just to free up space for the COVID-patients heaving into the hospitals. People like this should be banned from receiving NHS services.

Anonymous 22 January 21 11:39

Do you want to provide some evidence for that assertion @11:24?

ex-client of JL 22 January 21 11:46

Jonathan is a good-humoured chap and fun company. You have to take what he says with a pinch of salt, as likes to stir the pot and provoke debate. He'll love the fact this is being talked about and the attention it's getting. 

Sussex gent 22 January 21 12:10

Now that Jonathan is ROF-famous, it's time for him to launch the campaign for Jonathan Lea MP. He will have my vote!

Anonymous 22 January 21 12:39

I bet he calls himself a classical liberal flaneur on his social media profiles.

Expat lawyer 22 January 21 12:43

Jono is correct in pointing out the dangers of cultish adherence to the perceived threat of covid (it is real and I have had it twice)... communism & totalitarian state here we come...unfortunately we do not live in a risk free world so politicians need to balance off what risks to the public are tolerable and which are not.. the media and other ‘forces at play’ here have ignored the consequential losses which stem from lockdown (think: far greater excess deaths from untreated cancer, heart disease, mental health and suicides than have been saved from covid). Politicians have had their hand forced into these measures, some of which rightly save and preserve life and others which subjugate us into mindless, helpless minions. Lord Sumption has the facts right but the diplomacy wrong.

Dr Strokeoff 22 January 21 12:45

"The Jonathan Lea Network"

Sounds pretty damn top, where do I sign up?

Dmitri Tolstoy 22 January 21 12:48

Good man for trying to put stop to mindless tyranny! All relevant UK government figures, incl. Johnson, Hancock, Witty and Vallance (as well as the WHO and Dr. Fauci), said masks were pointless and even unhealthy. That was until mid June when there arose a mysterious political need to change the "science" in June last year. Then they all did a huge U-turn but gave no evidence why. Down with masks!

Princess Leia 22 January 21 12:59

Anyone who goes against the (enforced) public position is fired at.  Congratulations to Mr Lea for taking this stance.   Masks don't protect the NHS, funding does, so there is no point protesting that this attitude is damaging an already profoundly endangered public service. 

We need more voices of reason instead of idiotic fear.

Anonymous 22 January 21 13:09

Interesting fellow....seems that he want to be the legal world's Julia Hartley Brewer, who doesn't shy away from publicity or debate, and get his arguments heard. He was probably expecting some publication to pick up his mask ban sign - free PR.

I say give him a seat on Question Time.

Not Jonathan Lea 22 January 21 13:45

Bet my house that Jonathan has posted many of these comments

Anonymous 22 January 21 14:11

Princess Leia 22 January 21 12:59

Anyone who goes against the (enforced) public position is fired at.

So do people who agree with current measures.  Exhibit A ^

Anonymous 22 January 21 14:13

GENIUS. Great way to bring the in clients - it's not like anyone's be impacted or lost relatives. What an absolute donut! 

Anonymous 22 January 21 14:17

@Jonathan (13:45)

Bugger off Jonathan Lea, I'm Jonathan Lea and I'll say what I like where I like.

Anonymous 22 January 21 14:23

Whether or not a face mask protects you is surely not the point. Fact is, I can leave the house and pretend to be a ninja. What is there not to like?! 

During lockdown #3 I am trying to grow a pony tail to match. 

Heather 22 January 21 14:29

Wow! Just wow! What a read.  I totally agree with every word and really admire your courage to stand up for common sense. Thank you

Anonymous 22 January 21 14:31

@Not Jonathan Lea 13.45

It's a bit small-minded to think only Jonathan would post positive comments. Some of us also hold similar views about masks and lockdown! It's good his points are reaching a wider audience via this news piece, as all too often there's little coverage about the arguments from those who question lockdown. 

Anonymous 22 January 21 14:54

@14:31 - thanks Jonathan, really appreciate your words of support.


Yours sincerely,

Jonathan Lea

Will Jackson 22 January 21 15:20

This so good, so true and hopefully things will begin to change as there are so many like-minded people who can see what’s really happening.

Anonymous 22 January 21 15:46

Jonathan Lea's timesheet today:

0.2 - Making up names

7.8 - Posting on ROF strongly agreeing with myself. 

Really not Jonathan Lea 22 January 21 15:48

Jonathan clearly wants his voice heard on this topic - or else why post so much about it on social media. I agree with @13.09 that the mask ban was probs therefore some shrewd little publicity stunt to get to a wider audience via the news like this, and stir up some debate (taking the rough comments with the smooth). Mission accomplished Jonathan.

Not Jonathan Lea either 22 January 21 16:48

@15.48 if that's the case, then fair play to Jonathan for getting the publicity from RoF. Not everyone is in the same situation with the luxury of a good salary, a nice home etc during this lockdown. Jonathan is a voice for those of us questioning the impact of lockdown on mental health, wellbeing and livelihoods. And before there are any snide comments, this is not Jonathan or someone related to him.

HonoraryGlaswegian 22 January 21 17:14

This sort of nonsense irritates me immensely.  My wife's a staff nurse at a major hospital was hospitalised with covid in November and spent 2 weeks in ICU in an induced coma and on a ventilator, before being eventually discharged.  She's still recovering from the damage done, but she was lucky.  One of her friends from work was hospitalised around the same time, but never made it out of ICU and died just before New Year.  Anyone who thinks the virus is a hoax is quite frankly an idiot.

Yet another not Jonathan 22 January 21 17:39

It seems that posting positive comments for Jonathan, requires a pledge that this isn't Jonathan, or a family member or even his cat! He is a popular guy, so it's not a surprise if people who know him want to stick up for him.

This isn't Jonathan, but as frank disclosure, I've shared a stage with him at work events. I don't agree with everything he says and some of his ideas are far-fetched, but I believe what is really driving him is the argument that lockdown is causing serious problems with mental health and job losses. Glad to see him in the news anyway, as I know he'll want his message to get out there, even if it causes a bit of controversy.

Anonymous 22 January 21 17:50

I agree Jonathan, if you actually listen to what he has to say you'll find that Jonathan Lea is a pretty reasonable guy with some well thought out arguments. As the many Jonathans of his acquaintance who have posted above me have already testified.




Anonymous 22 January 21 18:29

There is a difference between legitimately raising a concern about the efficacy of lockdowns and denying the existing of Covid or airing your thoughts on the "#neworldorder". 

No doubt Mr Lea believes this to be "good" PR and is of the view that any collateral damage (offence to others, harm to those influenced, discreditation of peer reviewed scientific authorities...) is well worth it.    

InfiniteMonkeyTheorem 22 January 21 19:24



Debbie A 22 January 21 19:54

I am in complete agreement with you Jonathan and am completely sick of masks and how they're damaging our children's perception of the world. If people want to wear one it should be their choice but it should also be my choice not to wear one.

Not Jonathan Lea 22 January 21 20:11

17:39 - don't be so dramatic; I haven't suggested anything of the sort.  I too know Jonathan personally and find him to be personable and intelligent.. but (a) he pushes (rather forcefully in my opinion) his opinions on COVID etc. onto others via his social media pages, and (b) he is clearly enjoying the exposure this article has brought to his firm and his views. 

There are two sides to every coin and personally I welcome Jonathan's thoughts, even if I find many of them to be nonsensical - if nothing else he improves for my own personal echo chamber.  My comment at 13:45 was purely observational and intended to raise a smile.  Peace out and keep the debate going x

3-ducks 22 January 21 21:41

Classic Jonathan. Everyone who knows him (is there anyone who doesn't??) will be unsurprised.

Joe Bloggs 22 January 21 22:00

Embarrassing: opines on social media about something he has no expertise and fails to provide a shred of evidence from credible sources to substantiate such quaff;  please feel free to point me in the direction of a credible scientist who shares similar views...


Canard 22 January 21 22:49

@3-ducks : Totally agree - this is 'Classic' Jonathan....and most likely that he engineered the ban to try to appear on ROF for a bit of exposure (or was at the very least anticipating it). Something for him to do in lockdown at least! 

Friend of JL Network 22 January 21 23:03

Excellent PR Jonathan.. you grabbed people's attention and got a debate going. Well done! 

Clergs 22 January 21 23:14

I can’t believe yae’ve outed me Jamie!!

No flumps or irn bru for yous!!

Not Jonathan either 22 January 21 23:20

I’ve known Jonathan for a long time. He’s brave like lion, he fights like a bear and is a firm but gentle lover. He’s the best man I ever met.

With kind regards


Anonymous 22 January 21 23:37

Friend of JL Network - spot on - this will have the very best clients flying in! Plus, fingers crossed if just one person changes their mind on vaccinations maybe he can get them all the way to intensive care. BACK OF THE NET!!

Anonymous 23 January 21 06:33

Fabulous news. Well done. Finally some common sense prevails 

Friend of a Friend 23 January 21 08:25

Friend of JL Network 22 January 21 23:03

Excellent PR Jonathan.. you grabbed people's attention and got a debate going. Well done! 

And there was me thinking that one of the first duties of a lawyer is risk management.

Reading this article I realise that all I need to do to get my firm off the ground is invest in a half ton of manure and a turboprop.

Anonymous 23 January 21 09:22

Jonathan is a decent bloke at heart. He's passionate about his work, a good public speaker and he's put together a nice team. He genuinely wants to help businesses such as start-ups and small companies. But on this topic he's misguided to think he knows better than most of the country including the leading scientists.

Some kind advice to him: Stick to the law. You're building something great with the JL Network. You may be convinced you're on the right side of the argument with this, but you're not a scientist or an expert on viruses. You can't deny it's a hugely divisive and controversial position you're taking. It's an emotive subject and there are people in your network who you must realise you're upsetting with your postings on social media...you are not winning them over.

If you want to take a contentious stance, you're free to do that, of course.. and it would be fine if you want to be a politician. But you're trying to build relationships in the legal market and you risk alienating yourself from people who you want to do business with. I say all this because I think you're a good guy and I wish you well with the JL Network.... however your constant rants online about the "scamdemic" are not helping your brand.  

Anonymous 23 January 21 10:22

Good to see dollahat going strong post his retirement from the discussion board

Miri 23 January 21 11:02

I would like to offer Jonathan Lea my admiration and support for the brave and principled stand he is making. Rather than accept sensationalist press soundbites at face value, he has done his due diligence - as we might expect from any talented lawyer - to discover the real facts. He is absolutely correct in everything he says about the dangers of mask-wearing, and the fudged figures. This article has adopted a withering and condescending tone in an attempt to smear and ridicule Mr. Lea, but notably and revealingly, is not able to actually refute any of his statements.

It seems Mr. Lea is one of those rarest of rare things - a lawyer with true integrity.  Shame there aren't more journalists with similar convictions. 

PR manager 23 January 21 13:06

@Miri: RoF always has a bit of an irreverent tone. This article seems to me, if anything, to be pretty restrained when they could have gone for the jugular. There is a little cheeky wink here and there, but it's pretty straight and the bulk of it is actually what Lea posted himself along with his comment.

I think Lea got off quite lightly here, especially when you compare it with how this journalist in Above the Law reported it: 


buzzkills 23 January 21 14:13

I'm surprised at people defending this idiot at all, to be honest.

Part of the basic skill of being a lawyer is looking at facts.

If you simply ignore all the facts and spout off nonsense like a madman instead, you are hardly going to be any good at lawyering. Facts don't care about your feelings. 

survivor of the 1920 spanish flu 23 January 21 14:21

absolute right on for this chap. coronavirus is a scam, 99.9% of people under 70 will be fine. this is what we're plunging the economy into the toilet for?

Legal comms 23 January 21 15:24

@PR manager 13:06

Yeah, fair article by ROF, they've been reasonably gentle - in fact gives him too much airtime in my mind, allowing him the publicity he craves and another platform to broadcast his waffle. As per comments above, might well have been a PR stunt by Jonathan to get in the news, given that he's so keen to get his theories out there on social media.... 

Terry W 23 January 21 16:32

I applaud Mr Lea for speaking out on this.  I am a lockdown sceptic, and although his vews are more robust than my own, he is brave for speaking out.  His views have far more support in the country than people think, they just don't chime with the media/establishment view, so they are derided as a lunatic fringe.  History will be kind to the likes of Sumption and Hitchens, while the pro-lockdown fanatics and the GDR-style snitchers will frantically row back from their former authoritarian positions when the full impact of government overreach becomes painfully apparent.

Smackdown from Above the Law 23 January 21 16:35

@PR manager

Wow, the journalist in that Above the Law piece didn't hold back. She says Lea is perpetuating lies and 'baseless consipiracy theories' and 'you have to question the judgment of a lawyer who believes this nonsense.' Makes ROF's article look like sponsored content in comparison!  

Anna 23 January 21 16:45

Well done, well done.

Someone who has done research instead of drinking the kool aid.  I totally agree and applaud him for common sense and bravery. 

Anonymous 23 January 21 16:46

Yeah smack down though of course that was an opinion piece in ATL, whereas Rof’s is a news piece. Personally I hate the blurring of opinion and reporting. There are a lot of activists pretending to be objective journalists at online publications. 

Hutt 23 January 21 16:54

Legal comms I disagree that giving airtime to his mad notions is a bad thing. You need to have the confidence in your arguments and bring them to bear on his.

Arguing they shouldn’t be heard suggests you think they hold water and you’re scared of them, or think people are too stupid to see through them.

Flush it all out into the open, sunlight is the best disinfectant.

To want reporters not to report the news because it doesn’t reflect your ideological position is mistaking journalism for PR. 

Anonymous 23 January 21 18:28

Interesting point.

If someone says that the earth is flat should we report it?  If someone says that rabid dogs enjoy being petted should we publish that?  Or how about saying that mosquito nets in tropical climates are bad for human health?

At what point does freedom of speech become harmful?  And does it make a difference who is being harmed?  If children are being misled does that count?  What if people are being misinformed about deadly diseases that may kill them or their loved ones?  Is that the same as shouting fire in a crowded theatre?

Hutt 23 January 21 19:53

It's a thorny one.

Reporting 'the earth is flat' is of course very different to reporting 'X believes the earth is flat'.

The first of these stories is obviously wrong and irresponsible, but the second can be necessary journalism, depending on the status of the person espousing that belief. I assume you are referring to the latter. I think we should credit people with the ability to understand the difference. 

So yes, if Biden says the earth is flat, journalists should report it. They should research the science and reflect in their pieces the result of that research, which will be that all the evidence is that the earth is not flat. (As ROF did a little by pointing out that deaths have risen - maybe it didn't do much more than that because it believes Lea's position is so self-evidently absurd it doesn't have to, given its educated audience).

It means there may be collateral damage. As in, some people may latch on to the incorrect view and adopt it, to their detriment and perhaps to the detriment of others. But that's journalism. That's the cost of reporting what is happening in the world.

To hide the truth that, say, a lawyer is going around shouting that covid is fake when all evidence is to the contrary - because you fear some people will believe the lawyer - is patronising and means you have automatically anointed yourself a superior being, someone who can tell the truth from the lies. You have decided that while you are intelligent enough to know what is actually happening in the world, others aren't, and the truth must be kept from them. A cabal decides what is acceptable for the masses to know. There aren't a great many examples of that gatekeeping going well for the masses. 

The point at which freedom of speech becomes harmful is the point at which it is permitted. That's the rub. But the thing is, it can harm anyone, high or low, and it can help anyone, high or low. Whereas controlled speech only ever ends up helping the controller, and harming the voiceless.

Anonymous 23 January 21 21:46

 Whereas controlled speech only ever ends up helping the controller, and harming the voiceless.


I think that 's a little simplistic.  There will usually be some amongst the voiceless who at least believe (and may actually be) helped by putting limits on speech.

Banning holocaust denial, racial slurs, all the things that have become called hate speech, for example, gives support to many people who would otherwise not be in a position to defend themselves.

Anonymous 23 January 21 21:51

It means there may be collateral damage. As in, some people may latch on to the incorrect view and adopt it, to their detriment and perhaps to the detriment of others. But that's journalism.

Utopian crap.  Speech is censored and information manipulated all the time by "respectable" journalists and "legitimate" news outlets.

Kirsten 23 January 21 21:51

He is indeed correct. Great to see some common sense for once instead of MSM propaganda.

well done I applaud you.

Anonymous 23 January 21 23:21

Truth, facts and evidence are treated the same as lies, fantasy and speculation by journalists.  News sources are businesses, not arbiters of truth.  They have no obligations to anything except shareholders and owners and they are quite happy to ignore reality if creating argument, fear and doubt will increase the profits.

I think you are being at best naive and at worst deliberately disingenuous.

Anonymous 23 January 21 23:33

It means there may be collateral damage. As in, some people may latch on to the incorrect view and adopt it, to their detriment and perhaps to the detriment of others.


So this guy is and others like him are collateral damage but that's a price worth paying as long as Toby Young can tell his lies without contradiction and Eamonn Holmes can go on the telly and say that Covid is caused by 5G masts.


You're talking out yer backside.  This aint journalism.  It's giving large numbers of people false medical information  and has lead to deaths.  If it isn't already an offence one should be created so that people cannot use mass media to disseminate false medical information.

Manuel pacino 24 January 21 00:52

Respect to this man,he represents courage and truth 👍💪

Anonymous 24 January 21 09:21

Corona virus is just a rather sour cherry on the top of cake made of austerity, mis-management and ideological excrement.  The mis- (or dis-) information spread by the idiot Lea is pertinent to the big picture but he's hardly an outlier.  In truth he's nothing more than a tiny bit-player in a massive network of malicious actors and (as in his case) useful idiots.

The article below was written four years ago.  Most people regarded it as ridiculous scaremongering.  I wonder how you will feel about it now.  And the virus doesn't change anything for the better - it just puts more pressure on a system that is already close to failure due to cuts and underinvestment.


Risk Management 24 January 21 09:33

He can bleat what he likes but if he ends up with an employee who has potentially caught covid from the workplace, he's likely to be stuffed in a claim for compensation if there's no social distancing and masks and so on. His EL cover probably won't pay out because he's disregarded advice and he'll have to meet the claim himself.

Another hack 24 January 21 09:46

Agree with Hutt - this should be reported and Jonathan shouldn't be 'censored' or 'gagged'... especially as he doesn't want something covering his mouth. It's for readers to make their decision about his views - and, rightly or wrongly, some have supported him, while others think he's a loon.

Also seems a perfectly fair article as it uses what Jonathan has posted publicly and it looks like he was approached for comment.

Of course it could have been a PR stunt by Jonathan to get in the news (as quite a few people seem to think) but as he's already saying all this stuff regularly on social media anyway, it's not as if it's anything new... people can make up their own minds when they read it.

Anon 24 January 21 13:40

What a swivel-eyed lunatic this bloke obviously is

Twitterati gal 24 January 21 14:35

Ace to see Jonathan in the news! Well done JL!! 

Toby Greenlord, Freeman on the Land 24 January 21 16:00

This guy is clearly a total bellend.

He forgot to put up his poster of The Magna Carter.  

Jay Garratt 24 January 21 18:04

I agree wholeheartedly with Jonathon. Masks have NOT been proven to work and it is a personal choice whether or not the individual wishes to wear one. No one should be attacked for their stance either way!! 

3-ducks 24 January 21 18:37

Lol @ the commentator above (09.21) who managed to shoehorn some random anti-Brexit propaganda in here. Unbelievable. 

Anonymous 24 January 21 18:51

At last JL's truth bombs have been picked up by the press. So pleased! Thank you courageous Jonathan.

Anonymous 24 January 21 22:48

This guy is a moron.

The more the virus spreads the more opportunities it has to mutate, creating more infectious or more severe variants.

We're already creating all sorts of potential problems for ourselves with a half-assed vaccination strategy.  This sort of thing can only make it worse..

Anonymous 24 January 21 22:52

anti-Brexit propaganda

It won't be Brexit soon.  Scotland and Ireland will be re-joining.  You'll have to find a new neologism that means England and Wales.

Anonymous 24 January 21 22:53

Did I say new neologism?


Anonymous 25 January 21 08:40

If this person wants to help businesses he needs to get it through his head that with Covid there's no choice between health and the economy.  As long as health is in jeopardy the economy is going to be damaged.

The only way out of this is zero Covid.  Then and only then can life get back to normal.  If you go to Taiwan you have to isolate in a designated hotel for 10 days.  Then you leave and apart from mask wearing life is back to normal for everyone.

Their economy is working fine, perhaps better than before, because they tackled the disease.  They did this by having a working track and trace strategy, mandating isolation and mask-wearing and supporting people to do it.

We've f*cked it up because our government based their decisions and choices on political expediency and what the newspapers politely call cronyism because corruption only happens overseas.

The reality is that when this is over, as afar as possible we'll have to reset and start the economy again from zero.  It will cripple the country for years if we force people and businesses to carry forward debt accrued during this crisis.

Lea's attitude is sixth-form drivel.

Toby Greenlord, Madman on the Lam 25 January 21 11:20

Anna 23 January 21 16:45

Well done, well done.

Someone who has done research

Do your research.  That's what I always say.  And I always start with videos on youtube and blogs recommended by Bob who runs the corner shop.  What do doctors know anyway?

Anonymous 25 January 21 11:23

3-ducks 24 January 21 18:37

Lol @ the commentator above (09.21) who managed to shoehorn some random anti-Brexit propaganda in here. Unbelievable. 


Hush Duxie

Everyone knows Brexit is Angela Merkel's fault.


Johnson, Gove, Redwood, Farage and Hannan tried to stop her but she made it happen.

That's right.  Isn't it?

Anonymous 25 January 21 12:49

Where does Jonathan Lea get his news?

The radio station in Grand Theft Auto?

Looks like it.

Anonymous 25 January 21 13:29


The Northern Irish, maybe so.

But the Scots are going to get a long and humbling seat in the 'prospective member' queue.

While I'm sure they'll become full members eventually, the shine is quickly going to come off of the complacent, triumphalist assumption that on independence day Scotland will step back into the EU club as if nothing had ever happened (and, after that, the assumption that everyone will be delighted to see them and will treat them just like when they were part of the UK). They'll be parked in the accession lane for several years while the EU tells them what their new government, currency and fiscal policy is.

That process will be uncomfortable and humiliating while it happens, and it'll be a far cry from the self governing 'Freeeedom' that cybernats are currently enthusiastically promising. But it's the price any nation has to pay for joining. Scotland will be no different. It's history as part of the UK will not wave that reality away.

"No but, Aye but... it'll all be different for us" say the Scottish Nationalists. But that's all just fantasy and fiction that belongs in the bucket with the 'easiest trade deal in history'. If you were watching the Brexit negotiations then you'd know that the EU forces you to work at its own pace not yours. Scotland will, like all the other prospective applicants, sit in a rule-taking queue for as long as the EU wants it to. A queue in which the EU will enjoy access to the Scottish market, and probably an annual Scottish contribution, but which will last for however many years the EU desires in order to satisfy itself that Scotland has done everything it gets told to do (and which, coincidentally, will be as long as it needs to be to discourage other independence movements across the continent).

This all gets waved away as bitter English scaremongering when you point it out of course, but you only need to look at every other prospective EU member in history to see that it's true.

Anonymous 25 January 21 14:43

On the bright side, getting an agreement on fisheries won't be a problem.

Anonymous 25 January 21 15:02

Assuming there is an settlement between Scotland and rUK for Scottish independence there will be a transition period of 2 or 3 years and then it'll take 3-5 years to join the EU.  That's standard for a country like Scotland.  They might be happy with membership of EFTA.

There will, of course, be challenges and choices for Scotland to make but assuming it manages to avoid the confrontational approach of Westminster it can, and probably will, be happy and successful as a full member.

Coronario 25 January 21 15:02

'Plandemic' I could just about stomach, but 'scamdemic' is atrocious punnery. 

Mark Finch 25 January 21 19:35

The medical cartel, and their lackeys in government/the media, would have us all believe that there are just two types of people:

Type 1. 
Sane, sensible, normal folk. Those who trust and obey government without question. They respect authority, and only trust the experts and media outlets that their leaders endorse. Not ones for rocking the boat, these are the solid and dependable types - good, honest, decent citizens, who always put the greater good before their own selfish needs. 

Type 2. 
Crazy, unhinged, 'conspiracy theorists'. Those ignorant and arrogant enough to question the authority, genius, and integrity of the state. They are selfish, uneducated, attention 
seekers, who cling desperately to their wildly 
absurd fantasies in a grave bid to offload theirown petty anger and stupidity. Their theories 
are at once laughable and extremely 
dangerous, which is precisely why we need 
more laws and surveillance. 

Here's a the reality... 

Type 1. 
Frightened, willing slaves - lambs to their own slaughter, proudly clutching their vaccine records to their chests whilst whispering the words 'for the greater good'. These are the  types who wish anyone who disagrees with them dead - happy to both gaslight and to be gaslighted - to play their part in anything that confirms their hopelessly blinkered biases. Totally devoid of any capacity for critical 
thinking, they leave the 'complicated' stuff to their blindly trusted 'leaders' and 'experts'. To these types, 'study' and 'research' are purely for the 'qualified' and 'educated', and 
woe-betide anyone arrogant enough to even think about questioning the 'official' line. With dogged determination, they ruthlessly protect the pathetic paradigms programmed into them by their 'leaders' (via 'education'/'media), lest they be 'wrong' and might actually have to think, re-evaluate, take personal responsibility, and (gasp!) 'change'. Driven purely by emotion, their conditioning is complete - they prefer 'security' over 'freedom', deserve neither, and have already lost both.

Type 2. 
People who question known liars and are not afraid of being ridiculed by the fools who prop them up. Intelligent and discerning, they are willing to be wrong, and flexible enough to adjust appropriately, as and when 
necessary. Not afraid to face bitter truths, 
whilst refusing to be satiated by 'sweet', palatable lies, they scratch relentlessly 
beneath the surface, fearlessly facing their own (and our collective) shadows. They take nothing for granted, nothing at face value, knowing they have a duty to question everything - to remain eternally vigilant. These are conscious individuals with a full and healthy sense of responsibility who do all they can to protect themselves and others from the ever present threat of tyranny. They will 
never submit to conditioning, and as 
balanced, honest, discerning people they 
cannot, and will not, simply stand by and 
blindly 'follow orders'.


Anonymous 25 January 21 20:42

The government has failed to stop the spread of the virus and refuses to take responsibility for their failure.

Instead they seem to think that two individuals sitting on a park bench or going for a coffee is as egregious as an unworkable track and trace system or no support for self-isolating.

There is so much uncertainty and mixed messaging around the virus that some of those as yet untouched by it have chosen to believe that it does not exist or that it is harmless.

This is, for some people, a fatal mistake.

This man might be lucky and he and those close to him might escape serious illness.  Many of those in these comments might also be lucky.  Many won't.  And the refusal of healthy people to wear masks in order to protect the vulnerable will bear part of the responsibility for those who become ill.

Masks are not to protect the wearer.  They are to protect those around the wearer.  If you are asymptomatic you will still be infectious.  That is why you should wear a mask.  This is not complicated and wearing a mask does not make you a sheep or a slave.  It's sad to see people who presumably believe themselves intelligent writing that it does.

Related News