He’s a former member of Bilderberg’s Steering Group. Unsurprisingly, I admit, but wait.
Bilderberg is governed by a Steering Committee which designates a Chairman; members are elected for a term of four years and can be re-elected. There are no other members of the Bilderberg conference.The Chair’s main responsibilities are to chair the Steering Committee and to prepare with the Steering Committee the conference program, the selection of participants. He also makes suggestions to the Steering Committee regarding its composition. The Executive Secretary reports to the Chairman. – Source
Last few years, he’s been preparing to step down from the WEF leadership, which will be taken over by a team. We don’t know who’s in this team, but I’ll shave my head if China isn’t well represented.
Klaus Schwab is also very involved with another elite organization that studies how to change The Universal Declaration of Human Rights so they can harmonize it with the globalist agenda that includes a global citizenship, among others.
The Global Citizenship Commission was convened, under the leadership of former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and the auspices of NYUs Global Institute for Advanced Study, to re-examine the spirit and stirring words of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The result this volume offers a 21st-century commentary on the original document, furthering the work of human rights and illuminating the ideal of global citizenship. What does it mean for each of us to be members of a global community? Since 1948, the Declaration has stood as a beacon and a standard for a better world. Yet the work of making its ideals real is far from over. Hideous and systemic human rights abuses continue to be perpetrated at an alarming rate around the world. Too many people, particularly those in power, are hostile to human rights or indifferent to their claims. Meanwhile, our global interdependence deepens. Bringing together world leaders and thinkers in the fields of politics, ethics, and philosophy, the Commission set out to develop a common understanding of the meaning of global citizenship one that arises from basic human rights and empowers every individual in the world. This landmark report affirms the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and seeks to renew the 1948 enterprise, and the very ideal of the human family, for our day and generation. Members of the Global Citizenship Commission include: K. Anthony Appiah, Laurel Bellows, Nicolas Berggruen, Paul Boghossian, Gordon Brown (Chair), Craig Calhoun, Wang Chenguang, Mohamed ElBaradei, Fonna Forman, Andrew Forrest, Ronald M. George, Asma Jahangir, John Kufuor, Graça Machel, Catherine ORegan, Ricken Patel, Emma Rothschild, Robert Rubin, Jonathan Sacks, Kailash Satyarthi, Klaus Schwab , Amartya Sen, John Sexton, Robert Shrum, Jeremy Waldron, Joseph Weiler, Rowan Williams, Diane C. Yu (Executive Director).”-Source -Publisher’s press release.
On 9/11, the founder and president of the World Economic Forum, Klaus Schwab, was having breakfast with Rabbi Arthur Schneier at his Park East Synagogue in New York when the two jets struck the World Trade Center, Schneier said. Schneier, who heads the Appeal of Conscience Foundation, a coalition of business and religious leaders in New York, had intended to discuss increasing the participation of religious leaders at the economic forum. After the attack, the notion seemed even more urgent. With Schneier´s assistance, Schwab decided to commemorate the world disaster by moving his forum — traditionally held in the Swiss ski resort of Davos — to New York City, Schneier said. And he doubled the number of religious leaders to 40, including eight Jews. While Western nations have distanced religion from public life in recent decades, the forum´s new line is to embrace religion, understand its traditions and glean its wisdom. As international companies expand their markets and governments and corporations see peace as essential to progress, leaders increasingly are giving religion a role in enhancing international stability. – Source
I don’t know when you started counting, but Klaus Schwab was already at “Globalism 4.0” during the World Government Summit of 2019. Did you even know there was a World Government Summit? I admit I’ve missed this one until recently.
Indeed, he has declared “old-school” globalization completed in 2017. Plebs are still accommodating with the concept.
And then there’s this:
I usually drop a bonus on the counter, don’t I? Check this out: YOU CAN’T FIND KLAUS SCHWAB’S ANCESTORS NAMES ANYWHERE ONLINE. SILVIEW.media
We are funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way. Help SILVIEW.media deliver more, better, faster, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
“In The Unfinished Global Revolution former United Nations Deputy Secretary General Mark Malloch-Brown diagnoses the central global predicament of the 21st century: as we’ve become more integrated, we’ve also become less governed. Domestic problems facing individual nations—from unemployment to environmental distress—increasingly arise from international roots. As national politicians lose control to impersonal global forces they’ll be forced to become more effective participants in such international mechanisms as the United Nations, which may offer the only viable solutions. Meanwhile, ad hoc arrangements between NGOs, civil society, and the private sector are more and more often filling the gap created by the failures of individual governments. In the wake of the worldwide economic crisis of 2008, many have been forced to acknowledge that a global economy needs global institutions to govern it. And what’s true for finance, Malloch-Brown argues, is surely true for public health, poverty, and climate change. The Unfinished Global Revolution is a call to embrace more powerful international institutions as well as the values needed to underpin a truly globalist agenda: the rule of law, human rights, and opportunity for all.” Book official press release
Associated Press, 2 Aug 2017: “The turnout figures in Venezuela’s Constituent Assembly election were “tampered with”, the director of a company that provides electoral support services to the country said on Tuesday. Speaking in London, Antonio Mugica, the CEO and Director of Smartmatic, said the company estimated “the difference between the actual participation and the one announced by the authorities is at least one million votes” Smartmatic was a company created by Venezuelans in Caracas providing electronic voting machines to the late President Hugo Chavez. In recent years it has branched out to provide the same services to countries across the world, while continuing to provide support for elections in Venezuela. Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro called the vote for the constitutional assembly in May after weeks of protests fed by anger at his government over food shortages, triple-digit inflation and high crime. Many people accuse the ruling party of corruption and mismanagement. Tensions have escalated since government-allied electoral authorities said more than eight million people voted on Sunday, a turnout figure that was disputed by the opposition and independent analysts and condemned by many nations in the region and beyond.”
Dominion voting machines partly fabricated in China, company CEO says
To be updated
We are funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way. Help SILVIEW.media deliver more, better, faster, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
This is a late party for Silview.media’s first anniversary. We missed the date too, in the current turmoils. But we wanted to give you a special treat. There’s no happiness in this birthday, Covidiots stole it all, but there is a glimpse of hope, knowledge still gets through the censorship barrage and knowledge is freedom.
So many people noticed that China and the World Bank / IMF (read Rothschild Dynasty) subjects not only stopped poking each other, they seem to dance in sync. They’re not wrong, Kissinger has been working on this for over 50 years now and then Soros upped the game until the balance tilted in 2015, the year of the WB/IMF Summit (clan gathering) in Hong Kong.
UPDATE: Looks like we already have an answer to the question in the tile of the above video:
Don’t believe what we say, research what we say and make your own minds is our motto, and for the coming year we’ll make it more visible. But in this post it’s not us saying any of this stuff… In fact this write up is done.
This life-changing information has been sitting on UK Government’s website for over 15 months now. People find out about it from us, while their officials keep yapping 24/7 about an infection we can’t test for and a virus that’s never been properly isolated and purified in a lab as per Koch’s Postulate. Of course, this plan is not limited to UK, it’s global. Looks like democracy is as real as Rona, your informed consent matters and governments care.
The Fourth Industrial Revolution is not a buzzword, it’s official policy in every state controlled by the World Bank /IMF / Rothschild dynasty. It’s been so for long now. And The Great Reset gives you the map for it, in that Technocrat language that is translated to functional-illiterate sheeple as whatever they need to hear to stay obedient, while the sheeple-herders get actual live-stock management advice.
Regulation for the Fourth Industrial Revolution
Published 11 June 2019
Presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy by Command of Her Majesty
The world is changing faster than ever. New technology is creating new industries, changing existing ones and transforming the way things are made. We need a more agile approach to regulation, that supports innovation while protecting citizens and the environment.
We are a nation of innovators. Throughout our history we have seized the opportunities to create a better future for ourselves. In the First Industrial Revolution, British engineer Thomas Savery’s pump paved the way for industrial use of steam power. In the second, British scientist Michael Faraday’s electromagnetic rotary devices formed the basis for practical electricity use. In the third, British computer scientist Tim Berners-Lee invented the world wide web.
Technological breakthroughs in areas from artificial intelligence to biotechnologies are now heralding a Fourth Industrial Revolution, with the power to reshape almost every sector in every country. Our Industrial Strategy positions the UK to make the most of this global transformation.
Our regulatory system is second to none, as recognised by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development’s Regulatory Policy Outlook in 2018. It protects citizens and enables business to thrive. Together with our global research prowess, world-class universities and open, competitive markets, it attracts firms to innovate and invest in the UK. As the Fourth Industrial Revolution changes the way we live and work, it is vital that our regulatory system keeps pace.
This white paper sets out our plan to maintain our world-leading regulatory system in this period of rapid technological change. We will support and stimulate new products, services and business models, with greater space for experimentation. We will uphold safeguards for people and the environment and engage the public in how innovation is regulated. And we will maintain the stable, proportionate regulatory approach the UK is rightly known for.
Our openness to technology and innovation continues as we leave the European Union.
This white paper is our plan to secure our success.
We need to take action to maintain our world-beating regulatory system and realise the potential of the Fourth Industrial Revolution.
The Fourth Industrial Revolution
The Fourth Industrial Revolution is of a scale, speed and complexity that is unprecedented. It is characterised by a fusion of technologies – such as artificial intelligence, gene editing and advanced robotics – that is blurring the lines between the physical, digital and biological worlds. It will disrupt nearly every industry in every country, creating new opportunities and challenges for people, places and businesses to which we must respond.
Our modern Industrial Strategy seeks to put the UK at the crest of this global wave of technological innovation, bringing the benefits to business and consumers alike. Our foundations are strong. The UK ranks in the top 5 in the Global Innovation Index1. We are a global leader in science and research and home to 4 of the top 10 universities in the world2. We have a thriving start-up environment and are home to many of the world’s most R&D-intensive businesses. We develop and attract some of the most talented people in the world.
We want to build on our strengths in developing and deploying ideas to become the world’s most innovative economy. We want to raise our total investment in R&D to 2.4% of GDP by 2027, the biggest increase on record. We have set 4 Grand Challenges for the UK government and wider economy to seize the opportunities presented by the Fourth Industrial Revolution.
The Industrial Strategy Grand Challenges
We will put the UK at the forefront of the artificial intelligence and data revolution.
We will maximise the advantages for UK industry of the shift to clean growth.
We will become a world leader in shaping the future of mobility.
We will harness the power of innovation to help meet the needs of an ageing society.
Our regulatory system is a national asset. We are ranked 9th among 190 economies for the ease of doing business in the UK3, with the quality of our regulatory practices given the highest overall country score by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)4. We protect the natural environment and ensure the safety and employment rights of citizens. We also provide the certainty needed for businesses to thrive.
The Fourth Industrial Revolution presents challenges for regulatory systems across the globe, as they struggle to keep pace with rapid, complex technological innovation. In our Industrial Strategy, we committed to develop an agile regulatory approach that supports innovation and protects citizens and the environment. We need to act now to maintain our world-beating regulatory system in this period of transformational change.
We need to reshape our regulatory approach so that it supports and stimulates innovation that benefits citizens and the economy. At present, only 29% of businesses believe that the government’s approach to regulation facilitates innovative products and services being efficiently brought to market 9. The need for reform is urgent: 92% of businesses from a range of sectors think they will feel a negative impact if regulators don’t evolve to keep pace with disruptive change in the next 2 to 3 years10.
Other countries are rapidly reforming their regulatory environments to support future innovation, with Nesta describing these anticipatory approaches as ‘an increasingly important source of competitive advantage in the global economy’11. By taking an anticipatory approach we can give people faster access to innovations that can transform their lives and attract the ideas, talent and investment to the UK that will drive our future prosperity.
We are turning things round. The Financial Conduct Authority’s regulatory sandbox has kick-started a wave of regulator-led initiatives to support new products and services to come to market and been widely emulated across the globe. Our Regulators’ Pioneer Fund is accelerating the change, with £10 million invested in 15 projects to support technologies from autonomous shipping to virtual lawyers. We have established a partnership with the World Economic Forum to shape the global governance of technological innovation.
we need to be on the front foot in reforming regulation in response to technological innovation
we need to ensure that our regulatory system is sufficiently flexible and outcomes-focused to enable innovation to thrive
we need to enable greater experimentation, testing and trialling of innovations under regulatory supervision
we need to support innovators to navigate the regulatory landscape and comply with regulation
we need to build dialogue with society and industry on how technological innovation should be regulated
we need to work with partners across the globe to reduce regulatory barriers to trade in innovative products and services
This white paper sets out our plan to tackle these 6 challenges and seize the opportunity presented by the Fourth Industrial Revolution. We want to lead the world in innovation-friendly regulation that supports the emergence of new products, services and business models for the benefit of all. The white paper will be matched later this year with papers describing how we will modernise consumer and competition regulation in response to the transformation in our economy.
Supporting the emergence of smart systems
Our energy system is changing rapidly. There is more low carbon generation, such as power from solar and wind, which produces different amounts of electricity depending on the weather. It is increasingly decentralised, with generation and batteries located in or near people’s homes and businesses. New technologies such as electricity storage, smart heating controls and electric vehicles are emerging which can be used to help balance the electricity system. However, our regulatory system was not developed with these new technologies in mind.
As laid out in the Smart Systems and Flexibility Plan, developed jointly with the energy regulator Ofgem, we are working to develop a best in class regulatory framework that supports these innovations. We are working with industry to reform markets, legislation, licences, codes and standards.
The drive towards a smart and flexible energy system is an important tenet of the government’s Clean Growth and Industrial Strategies. The changes promise to provide significant public benefits, from lower energy bills to cleaner air and lower carbon emissions. By 2050, a smarter and more flexible system could save the UK £17-40 billion.
Accelerating the introduction of self-driving vehicles
The Centre for Connected and Autonomous Vehicles (CCAV) is overseeing a groundbreaking programme to prepare the UK’s regulatory framework for self-driving vehicles ahead of their introduction on UK roads. It has developed an open regulatory approach that safeguards citizens and supports the development of the technology as it evolves.
This includes the recently updated world-leading Code of Practice for testing automated vehicles. Testing any level of automated vehicles on public roads is possible, provided they comply with the law, including having a driver, in or out of the vehicle, a roadworthy vehicle, and appropriate insurance. The recent update to the Code announced that the government would introduce an application process for more advanced trials. This will facilitate the development of the technology, without the need for repeated changes to regulation.
CCAV is leading the charge in considering the wider implications of the introduction of self-driving vehicles. It has introduced legislation to insure the use of self-driving vehicles through the Automated and Electric Vehicles Act 2018, so that victims of collisions get quick and easy access to compensation. It has asked the Law Commission of England and Wales and the Scottish Law Commission to undertake a joint regulatory review to identify further legal obstacles to the widespread introduction of self-driving vehicles. This project is consulting widely and will provide a final report in 2021.
CCAV is also working with the British Standards Institution to deliver a programme of standards to help accelerate development and deployment of self-driving vehicles. The programme seeks to address public safety and reliability concerns and supports the UK’s reputation as a centre of excellence for vehicle testing, design and manufacturing.
CCAV’s programme has helped to put the UK at the forefront of this emerging industry and, with the Department for Transport, given the UK lasting influence in international debates on the regulation of automated vehicles.
We will create an outcome-focused, flexible regulatory system that enables innovation to thrive while protecting citizens and the environment. We will match this with clarity for business through better use of regulatory guidance, codes of practice and industry standards.
We will pilot an innovation test so that the impact of legislation on innovation is considered as we:
develop and assess policy options
consult and engage on policy proposals
design, introduce and implement legislation
monitor, evaluate and review legislation
We will encourage policymakers to consider the governance of innovation in a holistic way, noting the role that alternatives to regulation can play in providing government, citizens and businesses with assurance. We will encourage policymakers to reflect on when the right time is to introduce regulation21 .
Our approach will encourage policymakers to focus on real-world outcomes, with legislation that provides flexibility for experimentation and adaptation. Prescriptive regulatory requirements would only be set out in legislation where necessary to provide important protections. Where possible, alternative approaches such as statutory guidance will set out requirements so that as technology changes the system can respond in a timely and flexible manner.
We will develop tools for policymakers to support them to consider these issues; we will also develop improved analytical methods to capture the impact of regulation on innovation. During the pilot, we will invite the Regulatory Policy Committee to scrutinise the application of the innovation test, to ensure that innovators have confidence in how government is developing significant new regulatory legislation.
Making the UK the safest place in the world to be online
The internet is a powerful force for good. Combined with new technologies such as artificial intelligence, it is changing society perhaps more than any previous technological revolution – growing the economy, making us more productive, and raising living standards.
Alongside these new opportunities come new challenges and risks. The internet can be used to spread terrorist material; it can be a tool for abuse and bullying; and it can be used to undermine civil discourse, objective news and intellectual property. As set out in our Digital Charter, we are committed to making the UK both the safest place to be online and the best place to start and grow a digital business.
In April, the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and the Home Office published a white paper to tackle a range of both legal and illegal harms, from cyberbullying to online child sexual exploitation. In keeping with our ambition to lead the world in innovation-friendly regulation that encourages the tech sector and provides stability for businesses, the white paper sets out an outcomes-focused legislative approach that will support future technological change.
Realising the power of financial technologies
From AI to blockchain, data-driven financial technologies (FinTech) are changing the way that we bank, invest, insure and even pay for things. The UK’s FinTech sector is booming, underpinned by our world-leading financial services sector and thriving tech scene.
In 2016, the Financial Conduct Authority seized the initiative to support this emerging industry by establishing the world’s first ‘regulatory sandbox’: a safe space where firms can work with the regulator to trial innovative products, services and business models with consumers without having to meet all the usual requirements for compliance. Since its establishment, the sandbox has received more than 3 times as many applications than places available. Access to the sandbox has helped reduce the time and cost of getting innovative ideas to market (in the first year, 90% of firms progressed towards wider market launch) and improve access to finance (40% received investment during or following their sandbox tests).
FinTech firm Asset Hedge introduced a web-based platform offering forex options to assist small businesses and individuals to protect against losses incurred because of currency fluctuations. They successfully completed the sandbox programme to become a fully regulated company. Assure Hedge founder and chief executive Barry McCarthy said:
“We have effectively been given the same regulation that large banks have, so it really allows us to compete with the big players.”
It’s not just business that benefits. Consumers benefit from new products which have better safeguards built in up front, while the regulator benefits from greater insight into technological innovation. The model has been emulated by more than 20 countries across the globe and translated to sectors from health to transport.
From smart shipping to AI-powered legal services
The Regulators’ Pioneer Fund is backing the Future of Mobility and AI and Data Grand Challenges through ground breaking projects to enable technologies from smart shipping to AI-powered legal services.
The Solicitors Regulation Authority has already taken steps to facilitate innovation in the legal industry, inviting firms to develop new business models in a controlled way. The Regulators’ Pioneer Fund investment will enable the Solicitors Regulation Authority to work with the innovation foundation Nesta to accelerate ethical AI-powered innovations, with a focus on legal services for small businesses and consumers where AI and automation can have transformative impact.
Paul Philip, Chief Executive of the Solicitors Regulation Authority, said:
“Smart use of technology could help tackle the problem that far too many people struggle to access expert legal advice. It will help us further build on our work to encourage new ways of delivering legal services, benefiting both the public and small business.”
In the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, the Regulators’ Pioneer Fund investment will create the Maritime Autonomy Regulation Lab (MAR Lab) to bring together industry specialists, academics and government to pioneer new regulatory approaches and make data available to the emerging smart shipping industry.
The project will inform UK legislation for a domestic framework for autonomous vessels to attract international business and support and promote testing in the UK’s territorial waters. It will also support government efforts to establish a new proactive and adaptive international regulatory framework for autonomous vessels at the International Maritime Organisation.
Supporting the revolution in life sciences
New discoveries and the application of new technologies mean we can diagnose illnesses earlier and more accurately, create new treatments and ensure existing ones are more effective.
The UK is extraordinarily well placed to play a leading role in this revolution in the life sciences, with strengths in innovation, research, healthcare and business. To support these innovations to come to market, the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency’s (MHRA) Innovation Office provides a single point of access to regulatory advice on the development of innovative medicines, medical devices or manufacturing processes. The service has grown in popularity since its inception in 2013, receiving 190 enquiries in 2018.
The service helps to make regulatory information clear and accessible to those who are working on innovative research, supporting a key goal in the second Life Sciences Sector Deal to ensure the UK remains one of the best places in the world to develop life sciences projects, to protect health and improve lives.
The service has helped secure significant investments into the UK life sciences industry. John Parker, Director at AstraZeneca said:
“We genuinely believe that having easy access to MHRA in this manner provides a real competitive advantage to UK based companies”
In the Life Sciences Sector Deal, the MHRA committed to engage with industry to understand how it can further develop its offer by the end of 2019.
Entrepreneurs and innovative firms should be able to find their way through the UK’s regulatory landscape with ease and receive timely, joined-up feedback on novel propositions.
We will consult on a digital Regulation Navigator for businesses to help them find their way through the regulatory landscape and engage with the right regulators at the right time on their proposals. We will ensure that this is integrated with action to enhance the government’s digital offer to business in areas such as tax, grants, trade and investment, and build awareness of the available offer.
Initiatives such as the Financial Conduct Authority’s regulatory sandbox have helped reduce the time and cost of bringing new products and services to market and enabled businesses to win contracts and secure access to finance. We are funding greater investment in specialist regulatory advice services for innovators through our Regulators’ Pioneer Fund, to ensure that innovators who are developing novel proposals with potential for wider economic, societal or environmental benefit are supported to do so.
Leading the public dialogue on mitochondrial replacement treatment
Mitochondria are present in almost all human cells and generate the majority of their energy supply. Unhealthy mitochondria can cause genetic disorders known as mitochondrial disease, which can have devastating effects on the families that carry them. For many patients with mitochondrial diseases, preventing the transmission of the disease to their children is a key concern.
In 2012, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority undertook a sustained engagement programme to determine public acceptability of the use of mitochondrial replacement treatment, characterised in the media as ‘3 parent babies’. The programme included a breadth of engagement tools, including workshops, a public survey, open meetings and focus groups. It invited trusted scientific figures to take part in the debate.
The regulator found that despite certain ethical concerns there was general support for permitting mitochondria replacement in the UK, so long as it is safe enough to offer in a treatment setting and is done so within a regulatory framework. Following legislation, in 2017 the UK became the first country in the world to license mitochondrial donation techniques to allow women who carry the risk of serious mitochondrial disease to avoid passing it onto their children.
We want innovators and the public to have confidence in the UK’s regulatory regime. We will build dialogue with society and industry on how technological innovation should be regulated.
We will ask the Regulatory Horizons Council to identify priorities for greater public engagement on regulation of innovation. For example, where technologies pose complex ethical or moral considerations greater public engagement may be appropriate to shape government thinking on appropriate regulatory frameworks. Government departments and regulators will continue to lead public engagement on their policies, working with expert bodies such as the Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation.
As part of its role, the Better Regulation Executive will provide support, advice and share best practice with policymakers and regulators on public engagement techniques to support appropriate regulation of technological innovation, working with partners such as Sciencewise. The Better Regulation Executive will build capability in novel and creative public engagement techniques that go beyond public consultation in this important area.
Engaging the public on regulation of drones
Drone technology is advancing rapidly with the potential to perform critical services in everyday life – from transporting urgent medical supplies to bridge inspection and repair. UK cities and regions need to consider what they want the future of drone applications to look like. PwC estimates that by 2030 drone use could increase UK GDP by £42 billion.
With support from the government’s Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund, the innovation foundation Nesta funded public use analysis of drones in 5 cities for activities from inspecting burning buildings to traffic incident response. It worked with the government and the Civil Aviation Authority and convened local stakeholders to assess demand and identified the technical, economic and regulatory success factors for safe drone deployment at scale in cities.
The programme has concluded that there is demand for drones, which can fulfil socially beneficial goals. However, there are regulatory challenges that need to be solved – from how to deploy drones over long distances to what is publicly acceptable in terms of noise, privacy, safety and other issues. These issues are being considered as part of the Department for Transport’s Aviation Strategy 2050 green paper, looking at how a flexible regulatory framework can be established to support transport innovation under the Future of Mobility Grand Challenge and beyond.
Setting global standards on smart cities
Many cities face challenges in ensuring sustainable growth, with issues ranging from provision of water and energy to management of healthcare and transport. A range of innovation is emerging to create the smart cities of the future.
The British Standards Institution has developed a ground-breaking series of standards on smart cities, in collaboration with the Future Cities Catapult. International recognition of the smart cities standards programme contributes to the UK’s reputation in advanced urban services and helps shape the global market in line with established UK good practice.
Downloaded in over 60 countries, UK smart city standards are being adopted as international standards. In China, the world’s largest smart cities market, the British Standards Institution has set up a cooperation agreement on smart cities with the Standards Administration of China to develop a common approach to smart cities between UK and Chinese cities and companies.
This white paper is our long-term strategy for maintaining our world-leading regulatory environment as we enter the Fourth Industrial Revolution. The Ministerial Working Group on Future Regulation will drive its delivery, supported by the Better Regulation Executive.
The white paper is a plan for the whole of government, shaping how we will regulate in areas from healthcare to transport. We want to give businesses confidence to innovate and invest in the UK and give citizens confidence in our protections.
In addressing these issues we respect the devolution settlements with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. We will work with our partners in the devolved administrations and local authorities to share our innovation-enabling approach and ensure that every part of the UK benefits from the Fourth Industrial Revolution.
Summary of commitments
Facing the future
We will establish a Regulatory Horizons Council to identify the implications of technological innovation and advise the government on regulatory reform needed to support its rapid and safe introduction.
The Council will prepare a regular report on innovation across the economy, with recommendations on priorities for regulatory reform to put the UK at the forefront of the industries of the future.
The Ministerial Working Group on Future Regulation, chaired by the Business Secretary, will oversee the government response to the Council’s recommendations.
Focusing on outcomes
We will pilot an innovation test so that the impact of legislation on innovation is considered during the development of policy, introduction and implementation of legislation and its evaluation and review.
During the pilot, we will invite the Regulatory Policy Committee to scrutinise the application of the innovation test, to ensure that innovators have confidence in how government is developing new legislation.
We will promote new ways to trigger when post-implementation reviews of legislation are undertaken to ensure that legislation does not inadvertently ‘lock in’ outdated technologies or approaches.
We will develop tools for regulators to support them to review their guidance, codes of practice and other regulatory mechanisms to ensure that they provide flexibility for those businesses that want to innovate, while ensuring a clear route to compliance.
We will support business, policymakers and regulators to make effective use of standards where appropriate as a complement to legislation.
We will invite the Office for Product Safety and Standards, British Standards Institution, National Physical Laboratory and UK Accreditation Service to set out their vision for how the development and review of standards should evolve as we enter the Fourth Industrial Revolution.
We will examine the case for expanding the Regulators’ Pioneer Fund in future to help regulators to keep pace with technological innovation and enable the emergence of new products, services and business models.
We will examine the case for extending the Regulators’ Pioneer Fund to local authorities in future, in order to help them support greater testing and trialling of innovations in their area.
We have established a Regulators’ Innovation Network to help foster a culture of experimentation across regulators and share best practice.
We will ask regulators to go further to evaluate the impact of their initiatives on innovation and consider whether to commence statutory reporting requirements for regulators on the impact of the economic growth duty.
We will survey innovators and regulators to identify data that could be shared to enable disruptors to enter markets and deliver better outcomes for all.
We will consult on a digital Regulation Navigator for businesses to help them find their way through the regulatory landscape and engage with the right regulators at the right time on their proposals.
We have financed greater investment in specialist regulatory advice services for innovators through the Regulators’ Pioneer Fund.
We will scope and consult on measures to enhance co-ordination between regulators to ensure that innovations are guided smoothly through the system.
We will consider whether the Regulation Navigator should include functions for businesses to raise where rules or processes are inappropriately constraining innovation, so that regulators can review, clarify and potentially amend their approach.
We will invite regulators to develop metrics on the service that they provide to innovators.
We will ensure that data from specialist advice services is fed into the Regulatory Horizons Council, so that it can advise on where regulatory change or additional investment may be needed to enable innovation to thrive.
We will ask the Regulatory Horizons Council to identify priorities for greater public engagement on regulation of innovation.
We will provide support, advice and share best practice with policymakers and regulators on public engagement techniques to support appropriate regulation of technological innovation.
We will encourage regulators to build public dialogue into experimentation initiatives (such as those financed through the Regulators’ Pioneer Fund), so that public views are considered as new products, services and business models are trialled.
Leading the world
We have established a partnership with the World Economic Forum Centre for the Fourth Industrial Revolution in San Francisco to develop regulatory approaches for new technologies.
We are working with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) to explore the regulatory challenges of the emerging digital economy.
We will improve awareness of the effects of regulation on trade among government departments and regulators so that the impacts of regulatory divergence are systematically considered.
We will seek to include ambitious chapters on good regulatory practices and regulatory co-operation in future free trade agreements that the UK negotiates following our exit from the European Union.
We will continue working alongside other nations in the international and regional standards organisations, to help secure globally accepted standards for innovators to collaborate effectively in international markets.
We are funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way. Help SILVIEW.media deliver more, better, faster, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
According to the reputed truth-gods of Fb, Gates and WHO and the other Event 201 attendees spewed Rona conspiracies in a video they made in October last year, which implies pre-science and vindicates the people calling covid a “plandem1c”
Many revere and admire the elites for their grandiose plan to enslave the whole humanity, but in fact all their plan is dumb AF from its fundamentals down to its executives, and this is just one of the many evidences. I mean you want to control the world but you can’t even automate censorship on Internet and you end up shooting yourself in the both knees relentlessly? Imagine a fanfare of clowns with megalomaniac delusions, applauded by a congregation of geese. Covidiocracy is destined to cannibalise itself, starting with its propaganda machine, see the SJW/cancel culture.
I made this post very visual and simple so fact-checkers can understand it: They targeted us but it’s their people’s video and it’s made last year. We work mainly with their sources precisely because they’re dumb and predictable and we knew we’ll have to deflect back these BS attacks when they occur. And they fell right into it as soon as they could. They’re a buncha morons with too much money and too many toys.
Basically, Facebook and a host of its “fact-checkers” such as USA Today, Factcheck.org and more, have claimed that one of our latest video uploads “repeats information identified by independent fact-checkers [themselves] as false”.
Thing is we’re not the authors of the content, we just mirrored (reuploaded) a video from Johns Hopkins, untouched, we’re just platforming these people, Facebook told us they’re good credible people :D.
So the authors of the missinformation in the video are, among others: WHO Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation World Bank World Economic Forum Johns Hopkins Lufthansa and many more
Bonus: the video has actually NOTHING, ZERO, 0 to do with the BS fact-checkers are munching there, it’s not about the man-made origins of the virus or anything like that. Remember:
It doesn’t matter what Facebook says
Silviu “Silview” Costinescu
I don’t know it but I bet factcheck.org took money from Gates to label him as a conspiracy head.
Please watch and share our Facebook upload, if not to raise awareness, at least just to piss off these douchebags!
First hour of the simulation is already on our Bitchute, Youtube, we have a BrandNewTube channel too now. All full of “conspiracies”.
At least good thing Facebook and its “independent fact-checkers” are not mere narrative-enforcers and smear-machines 😀
It all comes round now… World leaders dealt above our heads, played their games and kept the plebs in the dark using smoke-screens of technocratic lingo. The elites are resetting our lives. All about The Great Reset.
We got encores from Henry Makow for this one, which is cool, because he is one of the early truthers who helped me when information was scarce and I was hungry.
2005 WHO member countries sign the new International Health Regulations (IHR) which is basically the implementation of the Health Management chapter in The Great Reset, the tactical manual for the New World Order aka New Normal. The document envisions using drills to perfect the new system. Download IHR in PDF
2014 – The creation of The Global Health Security Agenda (GHSA), “a group of 69 countries, international organizations and non-government organizations, and private sector companies that have come together to achieve the vision of a world safe and secure from global health threats posed by infectious diseases”. It was launched by a group of 44 countries and organizations including WHO, as a five-year multilateral effort with the purpose to accelerate the implementation of IHR, particularly in developing countries. In 2017, GHSA was expanded to include non-state actors. It was also extended through 2024 with the release of the Global Health Security Agenda (GHSA) 2024 Framework (called “GHSA 2024”). The latter has the purpose to reach a standardized level of capacity to combat infectious diseases. All financed through the World Bank, of course. Which is controlled by the Rothschild cartel.
Rothschilds patent the first Covid-19 test kit in the Netherlands. According to Dutch Government’s website for patent registrations: “A method is provided for acquiring and transmitting biometric data (e.g., vital signs) of a user, where the data is analyzed to determine whether the user is suffering from a viral infection, such as COVID-19. The method includes using a pulse oximeter to acquire at least pulse and blood oxygen saturation percentage, which is transmitted wirelessly to a smartphone. To ensure that the data is accurate, an accelerometer within the smartphone is used to measure movement of the smartphone and/or the user. Once accurate data is acquired, it is uploaded to the cloud (or host), where the data is used (alone or together with other vital signs) to determine whether the user is suffering from (or likely to suffer from) a viral infection, such as COVID-19. Depending on the specific requirements, the data, changes thereto, and/or the determination can be used to alert medical staff and take corresponding actions.”
2017-2018 – World Bank’s website reports massive shipments of COVID-19 medical devices (tests, mainly). See our previous reports.
2019 In its first annual report, WHO and WB’s Global Preparedness Monitoring Board identifies the most urgent actions required to accelerate preparedness for health emergencies. This first report focuses on epidemics and pandemics. The document is “co-convened by the World Health Organization and the World Bank Group”. Under “Progress indicator(s) by September 2020“, the report states:
The United Nations (including WHO) conducts at least two system-wide training and simulation exercises, including one for covering the deliberate release of a lethal respiratory pathogen. WHO develops intermediate triggers to mobilize national, international and multilateral action early in outbreaks, to complement existing mechanisms for later and more advanced stages of an outbreak under the IHR (2005).
Countries, donors and multilateral institutions must be prepared for the worst.
A rapidly spreading pandemic due to a lethal respiratory pathogen (whether naturally emergent or accidentally or deliberately released) poses additional preparedness requirements. Donors and multilateral institutions must ensure adequate investment in developing innovative vaccines and therapeutics, surge manufacturing capacity, broad-spectrum antivirals and appropriate non-pharmaceutical interventions. All countries must develop a system for immediately sharing genome sequences of any new pathogen for public health purposes along with the means to share limited medical countermeasures across countries.
The United Nations must strengthen coordination mechanisms.
The Secretary General of the United Nations, with WHO and United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), must strengthen coordination in different country, health and humanitarian emergency contexts, by ensuring clear United Nations systemwide roles and responsibilities; rapidly resetting preparedness and response strategies during health emergencies; and, enhancing United Nations system leadership for preparedness, including through routine simulation exercises. WHO should introduce an approach to mobilize the wider national, regional and international community at earlier stages of an outbreak, prior to a declaration of an IHR (2005) Public Health Emergency of International Concern.
Progress indicator(s) by September 2020
• The Secretary-General of the United Nations, with the Director-General of WHO and Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs strengthens coordination and identifies clear roles and responsibilities and timely triggers for a coordinated United Nations systemwide response for health emergencies in different countries and different health and humanitarian emergency contexts. • The United Nations (including WHO) conducts at least two system-wide training and simulation exercises, including one for covering the deliberate release of a lethal respiratory pathogen. • WHO develops intermediate triggers to mobilize national, international and multilateral action early in outbreaks, to complement existing mechanisms for later and more advanced stages of an outbreak under the IHR (2005). • The Secretary General of the United Nations convenes a high-level dialogue with health, security and foreign affairs officials to determine how the world can address the threat of a lethal respiratory pathogen pandemic, as well as for managing preparedness for disease outbreaks in complex, insecure contexts.
The chances of a global pandemic are growing. While scientific and technological developments provide new tools that advance public health (including safely assessing medical countermeasures), they also allow for disease-causing microorganisms to be engineered or recreated in laboratories. A deliberate release would complicate outbreak response; in addition to the need to decide how to counter the pathogen, security measures would come into play limiting information-sharing and fomenting social divisions. Taken together, naturally occurring, accidental, or deliberate events caused by high-impact respiratory pathogens pose “global catastrophic biological risks.” (15)
The world is not prepared for a fast-moving, virulent respiratory pathogen pandemic. The 1918 global influenza pandemic sickened one third of the world population and killed as many as 50 million people – 2.8% of the total population (16,17). If a similar contagion occurred today with a population four times larger and travel times anywhere in the world less than 36 hours, 50 – 80 million people could perish (18,19). In addition to tragic levels of mortality, such a pandemic could cause panic, destabilize national security and seriously impact the global economy and trade.
Trust in institutions is eroding. Governments, scientists, the media, public health, health systems and health workers in many countries are facing a breakdown in public trust that is threatening their ability to function effectively. The situation is exacerbated by misinformation that can hinder disease control communicated quickly and widely via social media.
No, they are not worried about misinformation. They are worried about their agenda being countered by truths leaking out on social media.
In the “Progress to Date” section, we find the following snippet (page 19):
In 2017 Germany, India, Japan, Norway, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Wellcome Trust and the World Economic Forum founded the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) to facilitate focused support for vaccine development to combat major health epidemic/pandemic threats.
On page 25, they are worried about armed resistance to their imposition of vaccines. To quote,
Challenges to poliomyelitis (polio) eradication efforts in Afghanistan and Pakistan and those experienced while containing the tenth Ebola outbreak in the DRC vividly demonstrate the impact that a breakdown in citizens’ trust and social cohesion can have on health emergency response. Consequences include attacks on both national and international health-care workers and delays or stoppages in response efforts. In some countries, waning trust in public health and government officials together with cultural and religious beliefs lead to is decreasing vaccination rates and leading to the re-emergence of measles and other vaccine-preventable diseases, a phenomenon found in communities at all economic and educational levels.
Page 34 proposes making ’emergency preparedness” a precondition for receiving loans and financial support from the IMF and the World Bank. To quote,
To mitigate the severe economic impacts of a national, regional epidemic and/or a global pandemic, the IMF and the World Bank must urgently renew their efforts to integrate preparedness into economic risk and institutional assessments, such as the IMF’s next cycle of Article IV consultations with countries, and the World Bank’s next Systematic Country Diagnostics for IDA credits and grants. The funding replenishments of the IDA, Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria, the and Gavi Alliance should include explicit commitments regarding preparedness.
Now here are the wonderful people who are members of the Global Preparedness Monitoring Board. Remember Fauci? Remember the Bill Gates Foundation? Other notables include a member of the Communist Party of China.
more info and resources:
“Simulation exercises have been identified as a key voluntary instrument in the validation of core capacities under the “Implementation of the International Health Regulations: Draft 5-year draft global strategic plan to improve public health preparedness and response”, which was adopted by the seventy first World Health Assembly. Simulation exercises, along with After Action Reviews, represent the functional assessment of capacities and complement States Parties annual reporting, independent reviews, and joint external evaluations. They play a key role in identifying the strengths and gaps in the development and implementation of IHR capacities and to support countries to assess the operational capability of their national capacity for public health preparedness and response.” – WHO
Full-scale/field exercises (FSX): “A full-scale exercise simulates a real event as closely as possible and is designed to evaluate the operational capability of emergency management systems in a highly stressful environment, simulating actual response conditions. This includes the mobilization and movement of emergency personnel, equipment and resources. Ideally, the full-scale exercise should test and evaluate most functions of the emergency management plan or operational plan. Differing from the FX, a full-scale exercise typically involves multiple agencies and participants physically deployed in an exercise field location.” – WHO
Field exercises: “See full-scale exercise. A field exercise is one form of full-scale exercise, focusing on more specific capacities or series of capacities, such as procedures for Rapid Response Teams (RRT), laboratory analysis or other sample collection and transport.”- WHO
Exercises are not one-time events, but should be undertaken as part of a carefully designed exercise program which ensures a common strategic objective is addressed. A comprehensive exercise program is made up of progressively complex exercises, which build upon the previous, until they are as close to reality as possible. This ‘building-block approach’ should start with basic exercises that test specific aspects of preparedness and response, followed by progressively complex exercises requiring additional preparation time and resources.
While Covid-19 is the largest so far, these simulations have a long history.
The photo above represents “The Department of Health and Human Services’ Covid-19 operations center in Washington. The department ran an extensive exercise last year simulating a pandemic” – NY Times
“The exercise played out in four separate stages, starting in January 2019.
The events were supposedly unspooling in real time — with the worst-case scenario underway as of Aug. 13, 2019 — when, according to the script, 12,100 cases had already been reported in the United States, with the largest number in Chicago, which had 1,400.
The fictional outbreak involved a pandemic flu, which the Department of Health and Human Services says was “very different than the novel coronavirus.” The staged outbreak had started when a group of 35 tourists visiting China were infected and then flew home to Australia, Kuwait, Malaysia, Thailand, Britain and Spain, as well as to the United States, with some developing respiratory symptoms and fevers en route.
A 52-year-old man from Chicago, who was on the tour, had “low energy and a dry cough” upon his return home. His 17-year-old son on that same day went out to a large public event in Chicago, and the chain of illnesses in the United States started.
Many of the moments during the tabletop exercise are now chillingly familiar.
In the fictional pandemic, as the virus spread quickly across the United States, the C.D.C. issued guidelines for social distancing, and many employees were told to work from home.” – NY Times
About the Event 201 exercise
According to their own website, “Event 201 was a 3.5-hour pandemic tabletop exercise that simulated a series of dramatic, scenario-based facilitated discussions, confronting difficult, true-to-life dilemmas associated with response to a hypothetical, but scientifically plausible, pandemic. 15 global business, government, and public health leaders were players in the simulation exercise that highlighted unresolved real-world policy and economic issues that could be solved with sufficient political will, financial investment, and attention now and in the future.
The exercise consisted of pre-recorded news broadcasts, live “staff” briefings, and moderated discussions on specific topics. These issues were carefully designed in a compelling narrative that educated the participants and the audience.
The Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, World Economic Forum, and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation jointly propose these recommendations.”
In recent years, the world has seen a growing number of epidemic events, amounting to approximately 200 events annually. These events are increasing, and they are disruptive to health, economies, and society. Managing these events already strains global capacity, even absent a pandemic threat. Experts agree that it is only a matter of time before one of these epidemics becomes global—a pandemic with potentially catastrophic consequences. A severe pandemic, which becomes “Event 201,” would require reliable cooperation among several industries, national governments, and key international institutions.
Similar to the Center’s 3 previous exercises—Clade X, Dark Winter, and Atlantic Storm—Event 201 aimed to educate senior leaders at the highest level of US and international governments and leaders in global industries.
It is also a tool to inform members of the policy and preparedness communities and the general public. This is distinct from many other forms of simulation exercises that test protocols or technical policies of a specific organization. Exercises similar to Event 201 are a particularly effective way to help policymakers gain a fuller understanding of the urgent challenges they could face in a dynamic, real-world crisis.
“The next severe pandemic will not only cause great illness and loss of life but could also trigger major cascading economic and societal consequences that could contribute greatly to global impact and suffering. The Event 201 pandemic exercise, conducted on October 18, 2019, vividly demonstrated a number of these important gaps in pandemic preparedness as well as some of the elements of the solutions between the public and private sectors that will be needed to fill them. The Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, World Economic Forum, and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation jointly propose these recommendations.”
An invitation-only audience of nearly 130 people attended the exercises, and a livestream of the event was available to everyone. Video coverage is available here.
Eric Toner, MD, is the exercise team lead from the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security. Crystal Watson, DrPH, MPH and Tara Kirk Sell, PhD, MA are co-leads from the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security. Ryan Morhard, JD, is the exercise lead from the World Economic Forum, and Jeffrey French is the exercise lead for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.”
Main organisers: The Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, World Economic Forum, and Bill & Melinda Gates. World Economic Forum as in the ideologists that redacted The Great Reset.
In order to create momentum for the Great Reset, UK royal Prince Charles said the imagination and will of humanity “will need to be captured” so that they can set the world on a new trajectory. This is taken from his historical but largely ignored speech at the official launch event for The Great Reset.
He further suggested that longstanding incentive structures that have adverse effects on the environments must be reorientated, and that systems and pathways will need to be redesigned to advance net zero emissions globally.
“This reset moment is an opportunity to accelerate and align our efforts to create truly global momentum. Countries, industries and businesses moving together can create efficiencies and economies of scale that will allow us to leapfrog our collective progress and accelerate our transition,” the Prince said.
These links from their website are all I have for now, but it’s sufficient evidence. I found it important to let it all out ASAP, while I dig for more relevant info.
I find very interesting who the main traders are: Switzerland ($23,684,716.51K , 2,538,500 Kg), Germany ($17,464,406.19K , 7,242,210 Kg), European Union ($16,940,789.16K , 8,953,990 Kg), United States ($8,283,146.64K , 7,020,260 Kg), Ireland ($6,356,054.92K , 590,259 Kg).
China has been shipping Rona tests like there’s no tomorrow since 2018:
Brb, I hope.
UPDATE SEPT 9, 2020 I think you will find this WB document very interesting. Download PDF
“This document describes a programmatic framework responding to the global coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, the ‘COVID-19 Strategic Preparedness and Response Program (SPRP)’, which utilizes the Multiphase Programmatic Approach (MPA), to be supported under the FTCF. The proposed Program, by visibly committing substantial resources (IBRD/IDA financing for SPRP is US$6 billion), and complementing funding by countries and activities supported by other partners, would help ensure adequate resources to fund a rapid emergency response to COVID-19. In parallel, it is being submitted for approval the financing of Phase 1 of the Program for 25 Investment Project Financing operations under the SPRP for countries across the world. The 25 countries are: Afghanistan, Argentina, Cabo Verde, Cambodia, Congo Democratic Republic of, Djibouti, Ecuador, Ethiopia, Gambia, Ghana, Haiti, India, Kenya, Kyrgyz Republic, Maldives, Mauritania, Mongolia, Pakistan, Paraguay, San Tome & Principe, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Sri Lanka, Tajikistan, and Yemen (the list of country operations is in Annex I of this document and the country operations are described in their respective Project Appraisal Documents (PADs)). The PADs for the 25 country projects included in this Phase 1 package are available online.”
The Covid Circus is supposed to be about health, but it’s ran by financiers and royalties, fronted by a computer dork and a communist terrorist.
So one thing led to another and eventually we struck oil. We put in a separate article titled
BUT. Before we get too enthusiastic, we need to compare the archives against the mega-leak from December 2016, because there’s been suggestions that this is not newly hacked data. Looks like someone wanted to drive attention and legitimacy for some information, slapped a bunch of old e-mail credentials on it for make-up and wrapped it up like a fresh hack. To me, it smells more like amateur counter-intel than intel. If this is correct, it doesn’t discredit the authenticity of all the info in the leak, just the perpetrators. It’s all worth double-checking. And considering the 2016 leak counted over a billion addresses, let me know who’s up for this test drive!
“In December 2016, a huge list of email address and password pairs appeared in a “combo list” referred to as “Anti-Public”. The list contained 458 million unique email addresses, many with multiple different passwords hacked from various online systems. The list was broadly circulated and used for “credential stuffing”, that is attackers employ it in an attempt to identify other online systems where the account owner had reused their password. The information was just recently released and I was one of the victims, so I thought I would share with everyone. Stay safe online everyone. Change your passwords often!” – Troy Hunt, Australian Microsoft Regional Director and Microsoft Most Valuable Professional for Developer Security.
Latest update: several people on Internet claim that some of the e-mail credentials worked and they accessed information. Of course there must be a few good ones among the 25.000, but I bet most have been changed by now, if there’s been a few years between the actual leak and today. I’ll wait for credible bombshells, nothing so far and this still looks like a sloppy fake hack. More updates as they come in!