It is my opinion that the Government is using coercion in order to try and assert the effects of a law coming into play before such a time as legislation has been altered in order to make such a new law legal. They are doing this, I believe, and pushing this idea that the law will come into play so hard because There is quite a good chance that it will not. Currently as far as I am aware, it is illegal to actually enforce a vaccine that has endless possibilities of providing future health risks on people as a mandatory procedure. As the government cannot ensure the law will come into play, it is trying to echo the idea loud and proud in an effort to get as many people vaccinated as possible. This does not mean of course that they will ever have the power to force emergency medical procedures on people.
At the moment all of the vaccines approved for use in emergency are being used in the UK before such a time as we know the long term health risks of these vaccines, and as such there can be no informed consent when people agree to accept them, which ultimately becomes tort of battery if information given to people during this crisis turns out to be false and they accept medical procedures without knowing the full risks. The government has provided legal protections for vaccine companies. This makes me question their safety, as if a product is truly safe, why would protections be needed?
Enforcing Medical Procedures and the Law
Until a law is passed in the UK enforcing people to accept vaccinations, which would mean removing people’s protections and rights, no vaccination can be mandatory against the will of an individual. This is why the mandatory vaccines are being pushed as an idea. It does not mean that the laws will be overturned and it does not mean that vaccinations will become mandatory. Until such a law is passed in the UK, it is merely spoken word and intention and bears absolutely no weight in a court of law against current laws in place to protect individuals from this. I will go into detail on these protections soon.
Care Staff
Care Companies are currently very keen to ensure that these emergency approved vaccines are used on staff before such a time as the planned law comes into effect. The planned mandate is allegedly coming into effect in October, but until that time has come, and the laws currently protecting people from this are removed or altered, I would recommend holding out and not taking the vaccines if you do not want them. There is a 16 week grace period as mentioned in many news outlets in which we can all have our enforced authoritarian jabs if it comes down to it – if, and only if such a law comes into effect.
Care companies should not tell staff the laws are coming into effect. They should say that the government intends to bring in laws. They may suggest that their staff consider taking vaccines, but not compel it until it is law.
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/577842
A petition was launched to try and protect Carer rights. The government’s response was interesting:
“The requirement will not apply to : (i) family and friends visiting a care home resident, including essential care givers (ii) any person providing emergency assistance and any member of the emergency services in execution of their duties (iii) any person providing urgent maintenance assistance (iv) any person providing end of life care or bereavement support, or (v) to any person under the age of 18. Visits from family and friends are vital to ensuring people living in care homes have a good quality of life and maintain a positive wellbeing.”
As Family and Friends, Essential Care Givers, Persons Providing Emergency Assistance, Maintenance crews, End of Life Carers/Bereavement Support and Persons under 18 visit care homes on a daily basis, and most of these, interact with residents at the care home on a daily basis, I can only get from this that the health and well-being of residents does not factor in logically, as all of these unvaccinated people who enter care homes daily and in significant numbers would be a massive health risk, probably more so than carers who are trained in infection control.
Additionally anyone with a medical exemption is also allowed to get by without the vaccine. (More on this later as we can self certify so this isn’t even an issue.) My reasoning is simple. If the health and well-being of residents matters, either everyone interacting with them has to be forced into vaccinations or no one does. There can be no middle ground on this.
Before we continue we need to look into Coercion. Coercion is: the use of intimidation or threats to force (or prevent) someone doing something they have a legal right to do.
So for example, any organisation threatening disciplinary action, unspecified meetings or punishments if their staff do not comply with being vaccinated before such a time as they would be enforced by law would be guilty of coercion. A breach or article 3 of human rights.
Coercion and the intimidatory factors of the threat of punishment upon failure to comply would classify as intimidation – under torture and it would be a breach of human rights. It would reflect abominably upon any organisation attempting to utilise the propaganda of a law that is not yet in effect to influence people into getting an unwanted emergency medical procedure. This could be for religious reasons, because of fear of the potential health risks or just because a person wouldn’t want it, even if they are afraid of needles.
As it stands, the law in the UK: Public Health Act, Control of Disease 1984 protects people’s rights and freedoms in regards to not enforcing invasive medical treatments, as the government cannot apply such pressures to the population. Hence the coercion and constant propaganda. Also why it’s not been signed into law already.
Regulations under section 45B or 45C may not include provision requiring a person to undergo medical treatment. “ Medical treatment ” includes vaccination and other prophylactic treatment. You can read more about these here.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/22
Defence against Vaccinations – Informed Consent
In terms of a medical exemption for vaccines, In 2015 the Supreme Court recognised at common law that denial of free and informed consent is a self certified medical reason in the case of Montgomery v Lanarkshire 2015 UKSC 11.
https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2013-0136-judgment.pdf
In 2001, EWCA Civ 1545, Supreme Court President Lady Justice Hale confirmed that enforced medical procedures without informed consent may be sued in the ordinary way for the common law tort of battery.
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2001/1545.html
Informed consent is defined within Montgomery v Lanarkshire is as follows:
1: That the patient is given sufficient information to allow individuals to make choices that will affect their health and well being on proper information.
As there is no information as to the long term effects of these vaccines and they are still approved for use only on the grounds of medical emergency. Sufficient information on long term effects does not exist.
2: Sufficient information means informing the patient of other treatments and forms of testing.
3: That the patient is informed of the material risks of taking the medical risks of taking the medical information and the material risks of declining it.
As no long term information is available, this would not be informed consent.
If future information came to light after the patient gave consent, and there is a breach of informed consent, this would be classified as tort of battery and the medication would be unlawful.
The fundamental common law right to free and informed consent based on the ancient tort of battery is valid in all 16 Commonwealth realms and the Republic of Ireland and USA as far as I know.
COVID passports recognise self certified free and informed consent under the phrase on the government website: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/nhs-covid-pass
“If you have a medical reason which means you cannot be vaccinated or tested, you may be asked to self-declare this medical exemption.” A declaration like this can be countersigned by a solicitor if necessary. Doctors cannot do this because it is unlawful for them to interfere in free consent. I know this isn’t my usual comedic stuff, but I hope it helps.
Just your average space adventurer turned blogger. Prematurely balding. Egad, no! Forsooth!
