Part 1: Are The Regulations the Government proposes actually Legal?

The government has put in place a new regulation which states that it will be mandatory for care assistants to have two approved vaccines in order to work within a CQC regulated care home. This regulation appears to be in conflict with the Public Health Control of Disease Act 1984, which governs how such a regulation should be made, specifically stating that regulating such a mandate is not possible. This is being done supposedly with the “Intention that it is necessary to protect the lives of residents.” It is my belief that the regulation itself is completely illegal as it flies in the face of the legislation documented in the Public Health Control of Disease Act 1984 and therefore should be nullified by this act.

This act under section 45E appears to state that such a government regulation in the sector cannot make certain medical procedures mandatory through its regulations. This does specify vaccination.,professional%20capacity%20unless%20exempt.

The government publications relating to the new regulations specify that they are indeed regulations, and also refer to them as operational guidance. Considering that these are regulations and guidance, and they are potentially unlawful, should they really be adhered to if they are in conflict with the Law?

The government also refers to the amendments to the social care act 2008 as being regulations and guidance. As regulations appear to be prohibited from mandating an invasive medical procedure such as a vaccine, are they really legally binding?

Concluding from the way the Public Health Control of Disease Act 1984 handles the ability to mandate a vaccine through regulations, I do not believe that enforcing such regulations is something companies should act upon. 

Moreover I believe that the Health and Safety at work act 1974 would require as stated: “It shall be the duty of every employer to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all his employees” due to the vaccines not having been around for long enough to know long term health effects of the vaccines, administration and enforcement of such mandates through regulations without scrutinising the legal side of things or attempting to look into health risks and side effects of these vaccines could potentially be a breach of this legislation.

The reasons for the regulations being made are that they are supposedly being made with the intention of protecting residents. This creates a coercion to adhere to morality when it comes to how carers interact with people in the outside world, and helps apply pressure to them to conform to government demands. Here is my counter to the argument that it is necessary to protect residents:

Currently care homes have several tests to ensure that the virus does not get into the care home. Staff are to take Lateral Flow Tests and PCR (polymerase chain reaction) tests to ensure that they do not bring the virus into homes. These tests help to ensure the protection of residents in the care home. 

The regulation states that friends and family of the residents who are visiting the care home do not need to be vaccinated. This is a potential risk to residents, in the case that the vaccination is actually useful or necessary which is debatable. This also applies to emergency services, maintenance people, private carers, persons under the age of 18. There is even the case for people being medically exempt. If this is the case, but vaccines are required for safety, with such volumes of unvaccinated traffic who do not always even know how to use PPE properly going through the care home every single day, it cannot be said that this mandate is being done to protect residents at all. 

It must be stated that a vaccine does not prevent staff from carrying the virus, it just assists the body in creating an immune response, though global results for vaccines have varied, with serious cases in Israel for example skyrocketing after taking secondary vaccines and booster jabs.

Part 2 Intimidation and Coercion – Thoughts on Science, and intimidation and coercion of employees in the care sector.

At the risk of sounding like a tinfoil hat wearing skeptic, currently at the moment there is a worrying trend with science that it must not be challenged. This has been pushed forward by the government, the media and the most powerful social media platforms in the world. Science is something that has always been challenged.

If Galileo had not challenged science, we would know less about the universe today, and would still think that the Earth was the centre of the universe. Galileo was in his time labelled a heretic as he argued against the science of his day. Even now we know his heliocentric beliefs were incorrect as we have gathered more understanding of the innate nature of the universe. Today we know that the geocentric and heliocentric models of the universe are false, as are the classical elements, Earth, Air Fire and Water, Hollow Earth theory and many others. This is why alchemy has ceased to be a profession.

Science has to always be open to scepticism and questions, as if it cannot openly be challenged, it cannot be considered to be accurate or correct to a level where it is reliable. If a fact can be scientifically proven beyond all  reasonable doubts it can be considered to have a high degree of accuracy, however if any attempts to question the science have to be shut down and ignored, or outright dismissed without scrutiny, this is proof that something is not right somewhere, as it should be easy using science to disprove skeptics and alternative theories. I do not believe the science to be accurate because of the global shutdown in what could be classified as wrongthink. It is very, very scary and highly intimidating.

A look at coercion and intimidation…

As it stands. The new government regulations coming into effect come into effect as of November the 11th to the best of my knowledge. This means they are not currently in effect, as far as I know. In order to understand where I am going it is important to define what coercion is. 

Coercion is: the use of intimidation or threats to force (or prevent) someone doing something against their will.

So for example, any organisation threatening disciplinary action, unspecified meetings or punishment in the case that their staff do not comply with being vaccinated before such a time as they would be enforced by law would be guilty of coercion through intimidation. A clear breach or article 3 of the human rights act.

Due to the sheer level of phone calls, emails, letters and communications between care home staff and management regarding the mandate of vaccines and the threats of termination of employment if staff do not adhere to the government regulations, not to mention the incessant peer pressure from other staff, friends and family. It can only be classified as intimidation resulting in one message. Get the jabs or lose your jobs. Need I state again that I believe these regulations are not legal?

Informed Consent and Battery:

It should be legally possible for all employees to self declare a medical exemption for vaccination in common law based upon a case settled in: 2015 in which the Supreme Court recognised that denial of free and informed consent is a self certified medical reason. The case is Montgomery v Lanarkshire 2015 UKSC 11.

Despite arguing this point, I was denied this right by my company’s legal team, which I saw as being unfair. As I don’t know the long term effects of the vaccines, and no one else does, I cannot have informed consent.

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. 

My statement is: 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. Ergo there can be no informed consent under these circumstances.

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. 

To conclude: As no long term information or data is available, any consent reached would not be informed consent.

If future information of possible side effects came to light after the patient gave consent, and there is a breach of informed consent, I believe that this would be classified as tort of battery and the medication would be unlawfully administered. 

I am led to believe that 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, that is, as far as I know.

In 2001, EWCA Civ 1545, I believe that 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.

Informed Consent Regarding Vaccines.

Currently the vaccines have not been in circulation long enough for long term effects of these vaccines upon human beings to be known. Due to this fact, no staff member who consents to be vaccinated is doing so under the rules governing informed consent, which I believe constitutes battery in these cases, (as they are an invasive medical procedure) due to the fact that required long term information on health risks cannot actually be provided. In many cases, written consent to an invasive medical procedure is not given by the people being administered vaccines. Even if it was given, due to the long term effects not being known, it would not be informed consent and therefore would not protect a company who had coerced their employees or others into signing a consent form.

So what does this have to do with coercion and science? If the science cannot be questioned and the regulation cannot be questioned, yet both must be obeyed, then coercion is occurring because one is acting not on what they want but what is being demanded of them under threat of losing their job. I myself know many other carers who would not have taken their jabs if their jobs had not been threatened. If they had not been relentlessly pressured into this action. I certainly would not have.

Are the Vaccines Safe?

We do not know. We will not know for years, maybe decades to come whether or not these vaccinations are safe. It is interesting to see a world in which they are lauded as definitely safe, with very low chance of risk, when they have not been out for a sufficient time for this information to be correct or reliable. Even after years and years of vaccine development there are still health risks with vaccines that have been out a lot longer than these new vaccines monitored worldwide on systems like VAERS.

To say something is safe without knowing the long term effects is extremely dangerous and unscientific. It’s this kind of thinking that you have to look at the cases of thalidomide babies to understand, or maybe closer to home the effects of the 1976 H1N1 vaccine which resulted in a rare neurological condition, Guillain-Barré syndrome occurring in around 450 cases, or maybe the narcolepsy following the Pandemrix vaccines in Europe.

In the United States, CNN released this article in 2020 which covers some more cases.


To make a vaccine that has not been thoroughly tested to the point where we know the long term effects of it a mandatory requirement of working in a care home, despite the fact that vaccines do not stop someone carrying the virus into the care home cannot be considered reasonable. The government regulations that support this appear to be in conflict with the 1984 Public Health Control of Disease act. 

Not everyone entering the care home or delivering personal care has to be vaccinated, which is proof that this is not in the best interest of residents, as all of the acceptable non vaccinated people are not subject to the same mandate. These people move throughout the care home which would clearly put other people at risk of infection – that is if vaccination even stopped someone from carrying the virus, which it does not. 

This means that, from my interpretation, this is not being done in the interests of protecting residents or all people entering the care home would have to be vaccinated with no exceptions. 

Share This