We’re publishing a guest post today by Daily Sceptic regular Dr. David McGrogan, as Associate Professor in Northumbria Law School, about the Government’s reliance on the Public Health Act 1984 to railroad through all the Covid restrictions of the past 18 months and which will almost certainly be invoked to justify vaccine passports if and when they’re introduced. He applauds the Covid Recovery Group’s efforts to reform the PHA, but thinks they’re unlikely to succeed because our supine MPs quite like the current arrangement for self-interested reasons.
In a recent piece, Toby accurately laid out the basic legal position with regard to almost all of the various Covid-related restrictions brought in since March 2020. That is, although there is such a thing as the Coronavirus Act 2020, and although some of its original contents permitted the Government to do things that were quite draconian, it has not been the source of any of the restrictions that have been imposed. These have more or less all come through secondary or delegated legislation under the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984, making the Coronavirus Act 2020 a bit of a red herring. I thought it would be useful for readers of the Daily Sceptic to understand what this is all about, why it is, frankly, an outrage, and why the Covid Recovery Group of MPs are focused on repeal of the 1984 Act rather than the 2020 one.
It is important to provide a bit of background on this for readers without a background in law or politics. In U.K. constitutional arrangements, only Parliament can create law, which it does through primary legislation: an Act of Parliament. Only Parliament can create law, because only it comprises (in the form of the House of Commons) the elected representatives of the people, who are sovereign. In practical terms, of course, most Acts originate as bills put forward by the government, but governments cannot simply make laws by decree – they must pass through the legislature.
However, it has long been thought that getting Parliament to pass Acts for every piddling thing a government might wish to do would be time-consuming and get in the way of efficiency and expediency, and hence there has evolved a system of delegated legislation. Delegated legislation is, basically, law that is created by a government minister or other public body through powers granted them by an Act of Parliament. Parliament passes an Act (primary legislation) which specifically grants the power to a minister to make certain orders or regulations, and the minister thereby creates legislation lawfully because Parliament has said he can. Usually this is done for fairly trivial and/or technical matters that it is not worth spending parliamentary time on.
The question, as you may already have spotted, is whether, when a minister creates a specific piece of delegated legislation, the Parent Act actually gives him the power to do so, or if he is acting beyond his remit or “ultra vires”. If the former, fine; if the latter, the delegated legislation was unlawfully made and will typically be “quashed” by a court.
Almost all of the lockdown-related restrictions that have ever been introduced – the prohibition to go outside without a reasonable excuse, the mask-wearing, the rule of six, the tiers, the prohibition on “mingling”, etc. – have been created through delegated legislation. A Government minister (in almost all cases the Secretary of State for Health, who was at the time, of course, Matt Hancock) is granted the power to make regulations to control disease under an Act of Parliament, and – hey presto! – the next thing you know is that you’re being forced to wear a mask on public transport (or whatever). Perhaps surprisingly, the Parent Act in question here has not been the Coronavirus Act 2020, but a hitherto little-known piece of legislation called the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984. It is this Act which has provided the legal justification for effectively all of the day-to-day restrictions on our lives – and which the Government intends to go on using if (when?) it introduces vaccine passports.
In the case of Dolan v. Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the legality of the various regulations was challenged on the basis that the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984, amended in 2008, simply did not grant the Secretary of State for Health the power to make things like going outside without a reasonable excuse, performing public worship, or “mingling” with somebody outside one’s “bubble” unlawful. In other words, he had in most cases been acting ultra vires. The Court of Appeal thought otherwise. In its view, since the 1984 Act gave the power to a minister to make provisions of a “general nature”, including “special restrictions or requirements”, to control the spread of disease, then as surely as Bob’s your uncle all of the regulations that had been introduced had been lawfully made. Never mind that no parliamentarian in 1984, or even in 2008 when the Act was amended, could have possibly envisaged that it would give Government ministers the power to intern the entire population in their homes, wear face masks, stop working, etc. As far as the Court of Appeal was concerned, the language of the Act was clear and that was that.
I mentioned that this was all an outrage, and the reasons should I hope be obvious. Thanks to the absolutely supine nature of the Court of Appeal’s decision in Dolan, Government ministers (it will probably be Sajid Javid, but it doesn’t have to be) have carte blanche to make almost whatever restrictions or requirements they like in respect of “stopping the spread” of the virus, on the basis simply that the 1984 Act lets them make “special restrictions or requirements of a general nature”. This is how restrictions will be reintroduced, if they are, and it is how the vaccine passports scheme will be given effect. It will all be done essentially at the stroke of a ministerial pen, with minimal or no oversight from our elected representatives in Parliament, and at the whim of the Government and its advisers alone.
It is therefore urgent that the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 is amended or repealed – not because that will necessarily restrict the Government’s ability to put in place the kind of restrictions that it has, but because it will force it to do so through creating new Acts of Parliament which can be properly scrutinised and voted on by MPs. The current situation, in which ministers just create restrictions and impose them and then, if they’re feeling generous, allow MPs to vote on them months later, is intolerable in a parliamentary democracy – which is still what the U.K. purports to be. In a parliamentary democracy, governments do not rule through executive fiat, but with the consent of the legislature. There is a good reason for this, which is that the composition of the legislature ultimately derives from the votes of the people, while the Government does not.
Sadly, my suspicion is that a significant proportion of MPs would rather prefer the current state of affairs to continue, because it means they don’t have to get their hands dirty passing distasteful legislation – Government ministers are doing it instead. It is therefore unlikely they would vote to repeal the 1984 Act. Convincing parliamentarians to act in the public interest would not be difficult in an ideal world, but depressingly we don’t live in one. I don’t think the Covid Recovery Group will have much success.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Reforming the 1984 Public Health Act would entail a governing party voting to limit the powers of the government.
That’s just not going to happen. They don’t want less power, they want more.
It would be like cancer voting for chemotherapy.
Nice one!
There’s only one world leader I know of in recent years (argument from ignorance, I know) that has made any sort of successful attempt at limiting their government’s power. But everyone hated him, so…
@Cristi.Neagu – Who was that? (No need to be coy
)
Trump, of course. I grant you that he didn’t make world shattering changes. But he is the only leader I can think of that has reduced taxation, increasing everyone’s standard of living. At the end of 2019 he was gaining a lot of support with the lower classes because for the first time in a very long time, they had more money in their pocket at the end of the year than at the start.
I feared you might mean Trump.
Trump was the guy who said when in office
You’re taking that out of context. He was talking about power over the states, not over the people. Lastly, that doesn’t mean he didn’t lower taxes.
We did see, and he didn’t. Former Vice President Biden is doing it right now.
Which one did the media call a fascist?
He also withdrew from NAFTA, and forced a redraft which actually helped American business.
There were some good things he did which the media never gave him credit for.
That American election result is as legitimate as lockdowns/vaccines being about public health.
Oh please…
Ya know, I was, like many, anti-trumpers before he was ‘elected’, mostly because of his conduct over his Scottish golf course in the 90s.
But being the contrarian I am, I really grew to like what he was about & his rather simple narrative.
But Trump was in it for trump, he just exploited the desperate for his own ego. He did nothing to drain the swamp, I suspect he was just a useful idiot for the deep state, whatever the truth, he changed nothing.
Which probably highlights POTUS is just for appearance’s sake,(theatrical prop) nobody can claim Biden his running anything. The world is run by a technocratic global mafia, voting isn’t going to change that.
There are many reasons why Trump didn’t “drain the swamp”. As we have found out since then, the FBI, CIA, and Homeland Security were completely against him from the start. The FBI started that whole Russiagate investigation knowing full well nothing of the sort happened, and the evidence they were presented with either came from a communist former secret agent, or from a stack of blank papers. Later we found out that not even the Army higher-ups were on Trump’s side, and they actively lied to him when we was pulling troops back from the Middle East.
The things that Trump did get to do, however, were mostly for the people’s benefit. If he was in it for himself, he would have encouraged illegal immigration for all the cheap labour it brings. Instead, he brought immigration numbers to very low levels. If he was for himself, he would have encouraged trade with China, tapping all that cheap workforce, rather than place taxes on Chinese imports and moving the industry back in America. If he was out for himself, he wouldn’t have reduced taxes, giving people more financial room to breathe. In 3 years, Trump did more for the US economy than Obama did in 8.
And the biggest reason why we know he was not in the same boat as the rest is because the sheer levels of hatred and lies aimed at him. The media lied about anything and everything. They never gave him recognition for anything. The elite cabal joined in, propagating those lies. We all know what Khan did and said when Trump visited the UK. We all know how Boris stabbed Trump in the back, after Trump was one of the only people to support Boris and Brexit after May left. Would you say Khan and Boris are for the people, or against them?
Trump had no friends anywhere in government, no matter which government you look at. His only friends and supporters were the American people, and other people around the globe who saw him as the last populist leader, and that should tell you a lot. To quote Frodo, from Lord of the Rings: “I think a servant of the enemy would look fairer and feel fouler.”
Trumps a billionaire, billionaires aren’t altruistic community minded people, Trump is about trumps ego! He is clearly a very good salesman.
Trump had no friends because he simply isn’t in the neoliberal club. I agree with you about CIA, FBI etc a.k.a. the deep state, which proves my point.
Voting won’t change anything, neither will Trump whether he’s re-elected or not.
I wouldn’t say any politician or technocrat are for the people!
You clearly know very little about Trump. Go and see what his employees say about him. He’s made his fortune by giving people what they needed and wanted. His first success was restoring the Commodore Hotel, which was falling apart. He is probably the biggest reason why Manhattan stopped being a dump.
Yes… clearly… the deep state being against Trump means Trump was the puppet of the deep state… Flawless logic.
Propaganda….
‘Go see what the people I pay, say about me‘ hmm
Stop it.
‘Flawless logic.‘
Yes you can take anything I say out of context to prove your point, you can have your own opinions, just not your own facts.
Hey you wear your MAGA hat, I don’t delegate my freedoms away, I do my own thinking. I’d rather be independent & have no rulers than waste my time voting throwing away my self-reliance. Trouble is schmucks that vote for “democracy” take away MY inalienable right to self-determination, you’re all criminals. LOL.
I’m sure that if you ask an Amazon warehouse employee how great working for them is, they will give you stellar reviews… And am I to understand that if you work in horrific conditions, you’ll be telling people how great your employer is? Sorry, but you keep coming up with these absolutely ridiculous ideas.
I think we’re done here.
You seem confused.
Not everyone. By a long way. If it was possible to hold an honest election….but Mr Global won’t allow that.
I was being facetious
Big Tech Is An Extension Of America’s National Security State
https://rumble.com/vnzmfn-big-tech-is-an-extension-of-americas-national-security-state.html
join the peaceful resistance
Friday 22nd October 11am
Yellow Boards Event – Stand by the Road
Tesco Superstore
17 County Ln, Warfield, Bracknell RG42 3JP
Saturday 30th October 2pm
SPECIAL STAND IN THE PARK WINDSOR with Yellow Boards
Alexander Park (near Bandstand) Stand in the Park
Barry Rd/Goswell Rd
Windsor SL4 1QY
Meet in the Park 2pm followed by walk to
Stand in the Town Centre By the Castle
About 2 hours in total.
Stand in the Park – keep sane – talk freedom and have a laugh
Wokingham Stand in the Park Howard Palmer Gardens RG40 2HD Sundays 10am
behind the Cockpit Path car park in the centre of the town
Join Telegram http://t.me/astandintheparkbracknell
Back in the 80’s, a Western reporter once asked Saddam what the law in Iraq was based on. Saddam took a long pull on his Cuban cigar, then said, The law is any sheet of paper with my signature at the bottom.
Be careful what you wish for…….the PHA is primary legislation – and it contains a very valuable section: S.45D states that ministers may NOT coerce any medical treatment, and that specifically includes vaccination.
Doing away with it would be counter-productive.
The mandating of jabs for care-home workers was done with secondary legislation.
Do I have it wrong, or is it the case that primary legislation CANNOT over-ride the primary? In other words, the car-hime mandate is ultra vires and not enforceable?
Secondary legislation cannot overrule primary. The right to protest is in the Human Rights Act. A clause in the Human Rights Act instructs that all subsequent legislation must be complaint with HRA. Where for certain reasons (usually national security), legislation is required to be not complaint with HRA, the the specific clauses must be agreed by parliament.
If we had a proper Opposition who worked with the Tory rebels it could happen. Sadly not until Sir Kneel is replaced.
as they can do anything they like if ‘they are stopping the spread’ then can they ever act ultra vires?
If they shot non-mask wearers on sight – is this allowed? Is there any point at which the 1984 act comes into conflict with anything else?
I was genuinely surprised that they were even able to ban us from leaving our homes. I didn’t think they had the power. What don’t they have to power to do and why?
Yep. And where can common law save us from them and the act, like with self-exemptions from masks (and vaxx passports currently), which they surely didn’t grant voluntarily but for a firm legal reason and constraint?!
Why can they do away with this constraint in December for vaxx passports and with the hc worker mandate (maybe they really can’t?!), but not with masks if/when they reintroduce them (or can/will they?!)?!
THAT would be most helpful and most important to have clarified.
The self exemption was written in to prevent masses of challenges to the legislation by various disability groups, that would likely have seen it thrown out as ultra vires.
Probably the right to a trial would be hard to override
Ultimately it is public opinion that would determine how far they go
That’s mob rule.
Indeed, after the parliament has voluntarily stopped doing its job, the only thing left you have is mob rule.
We currently have One Party rule. Which do you think is worse, and why?
The awakening!
In the end “the law” is decided by what ordinary people are willing to put up with.
Statutes are just dusty bits of paper in museum filing cabinets at the end of the day.
In a 20mph zone, nobody, absolutely nobody, drives at 20mph, including (from observation) police and speed camera van drivers.
Nobody “puts up with” that ridiculous law.
However, the law is still on the statute books, is still enforced, and people are still penalised over it.
My point being that it takes more than passive resistance or even habitual flouting to end a law.
It’s rare, but you do get the occasional self-righteous prig blocking the road at snail’s pace. Very sad!
We create rules that protect our own interests, the laws no different, laws are by & on behalf of the establishment, the rest of us are educated in indoctrination centres (schools) to believe in them.
These aren’t the laws of nature! One man’s right is another man’s shackle. Our “democracy” is a fraud, I’d argue our ruling class (neoliberal, middle class) has no mandate to govern, rarely does any political party reach much more than 35% of the overall vote, that’s not a majority of anything.
Don’t get me wrong, the system works for some, just depends on what your priorities & principals are.
Quite. The Court should be thinking about the implications of taking that line of thinking to its logical conclusion, as you have done. Unfortunately the Act (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/22/part/2A/crossheading/power-to-make-regulations) does give a very broad discretion to the minister, and allows the minister to determine whether or not it’s proportionate.
The proposed amendments are quite good – https://twitter.com/SteveBakerHW/status/1361237773802471427?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1361237773802471427%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.stevebaker.info%2F2021%2F10%2Ftodays-motion-on-the-renewal-of-the-coronavirus-act-2020%2F
@steve_z – “What don’t they have to power to do and why?”
If you mean “legal authority”, the answer is “nothing”. (See the extract from the PHA 1984 below.) But “power”? Well maybe a few things are left.
Watch carefully the use and development of the concept of an “overwhelming of the NHS”.
Also watch the reporting of (and controlled responses to) stories such as how in some Brazilian hospitals anaesthetics ran out and patients had to be strapped down instead. I saw some British opinion channellers spout the line that it might soon become “kind” to give them fatal injections.
They’ll be spouting it about Britain the moment they receive the OK to say the NHS has been “overwhelmed”.
Extract from the Act:
This, by the way, is why the US has a written constitution. Its main purpose is to limit what the State is allowed to do. It can only be amended, I think, by the vast majority of individual states all agreeing.
Breaking news…..
The ‘informed’ that has been missing from ‘informed consent’ has been found!! – get yourself informed before you give consent, its all here…
https://www.independentinformation.co.uk/resources/articles/covid-vaccines-safe-effective
here’s a little extract to wet your whistle re vaccine safety…
This very helpful paper by Bart Classen re-analyses the trial data for the 4 main vaccines, Pfizer, Moderna, Astra Zeneca and J&J, using end-points that the general public would actually expect to see used i.e. he examined whether the vaccines reduced deaths and severe morbidity (health conditions) instead of the trial end points actually used of whether they merely reduced the number of (fairly meaningless) PCR positive cases. https://www.scivisionpub.com/abstract-display.php?id=1811 .
The following is extracted from the conclusion: “Results prove that none of the vaccines provide a health benefit and all pivotal trials show a statically significant increase in ‘all cause severe morbidity’ in the vaccinated group compared to the placebo group. The Moderna immunized group suffered 3,042 more severe events than the control group (p=0.00001). The Pfizer data was grossly incomplete, but data provided showed the vaccination group suffered 90 more severe events than the control group (p=0.000014), when only including ‘unsolicited’ adverse events. The Janssen immunized group suffered 264 more severe events than the control group (p=0.00001). These findings contrast the manufacturers’ inappropriate surrogate endpoints. Based on this data it is all but a certainty that mass COVID-19 immunization is hurting the health of the population in general. Scientific principles dictate that the mass immunization with COVID-19 vaccines must be halted immediately because we face a looming vaccine induced health catastrophe.”
Can’t really describe this government as democratic, they have used relentless propaganda to instil fear and misinformation into the population – using fear to control people was used by the Nazis and all the dictatorships for ever – not the governments of free a free people. Tell the government and their ‘Public health’ fascists to F*ck off
Essential viewing for any Skeptic – Iain Davis’s research and book review, highly illuminating…
https://odysee.com/@corbettreport:0/davis-pseudopandemic-720p:0
“I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me…”
[Frank Herbert DUNE]
Name your “freedoms” pre-covid.
Not many. Successive governments have been whittling them away for decades. Covid has simply been an excuse to accelerate the process.
What idiocy is that – you cannot suffer a vaccine adverse event without taking a vaccine. p=0.0000000000001
Obviously most peeps playing along with the narrative attacks any that challenge them and accuse them of being conspiracy theorists, right wing nutters, deniers, etc. and avoid debate. But it is quite refreshing that the author of this excellent article has requested that people comment/challenge on any discrepancies, presumably because that is the scientific way – so please relay your comments to the author where I am sure they will be both welcomed and answered in a scientific way.
see the fore note,
https://www.independentinformation.co.uk/resources/articles/covid-vaccines-safe-effective
The actual wording is
severe events
not
vaccine adverse events
This is because in any control group there will be people susceptible to natural disease.
About the Author: John Barthelow Classen is an anti-vaccine advocate who has published research falsely linking vaccines to diabetes, Alzheimer’s, and other diseases.
You can also check the caliber of this true scientist by noting the fact that his papers have zero citations, except from himself.
But wait, there is more! This “true science” “journal” in which he has “published” his “research” does not even have an ISSN, which means it does not appear in any journal rankings. Apparently the title is stolen from another journal (Current Trends in Internal Medicine, ISSN 2638-003X) to increase confusion.
attacking the speaker is a sign you cannot refute their arguments…
Not good for you.
none of that is about what he wrote – but I am sure he is unpopular amongst big pharma bought and paid for publications
and if he is wrong in this case, please explain why he is wrong
Bart Classen’s point is fairly simple, though hidden behind complicated terminology. His conclusion is in plain language and as such is clear from a quick scan, but his method of arriving at this conclusion is likely to be ignored by the casual reader.
He doesn’t ‘re-analyse’ the original study data to discover some hidden truth, but simply re-presents it and asks the reader to think about it in different terms.
I’m not an expert, but I’ll attempt to present what I think he says and you see what you think. I’ll just cover the Moderna as that’s his key point. It’s very summarised but hopefully the argument he makes is still clear.
All the data he cites come straight from the Moderna study paper in NEJM:
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2035389
Severe Adverse events in vaccine group after dose 2 vs control:
(and no deaths due to vaccine during study)
Study made clear these resolved within a few days of 2nd dose.
His point is these above issues taken together are WORSE than the benefits provided by the vaccine and as such the vaccines should be stopped.
Benefits in vaccine group vs control during study:
Avoidance of:
His point is these benefits are not worth the above costs (fever, headaches) and so he concludes there is ‘no scientific evidence’ for the vaccines improving individual or population health.
You can decide for yourself what you think, but I and I suspect many other people would very strongly disagree with him.
But then.
He also makes the mistake of assuming the only benefits possible are those that were shown up during the study period. Let’s assume we reject the vaccine based on this study. We could assume that over time (say 2 years) the majority of the study population catch this incredibly infectious virus. For sake of argument let’s say 80% of people over 2 years. If we assume an IFR of 0.2% (which is conservative) that means 15,000 people x 80% x 0.2% = 24 people likely to die, and then perhaps 700 or so severe COVID cases.
So now we are comparing:
24 deaths + 700 severe COVID cases
vs
a few thousand bad fevers, headaches and fatigue.
So for him, the fevers, headaches and fatigue are not worth those 24 people’s lives. Whether you agree with him or not is really a moral point rather than a scientific one.
From a purely economic point of view, those 24 deaths and 700 severe COVID cases are going to cost many millions in healthcare, and the vaccine is peanuts compared to that. A point no doubt not lost on Mr Javid.
This is a non-expert summary.
BTW it’s not an ad hominem to point out a ‘scientific study’ is likely bad if it’s published in a fake journal and its single author is not cited by anyone. The stuff about Anthrax was a bit weird as well.
You need to factor into your argument that a) the effectiveness of the so-called vaccines wanes over a matter of a few months, b) that the vaccinated very quickly become more likely to be infected and infectious than the unvaccinated, and c) we have zero knowledge of the possible long-term adverse effects of the vaccines. So you have to compare the “24 deaths and 700 severe covid cases” that you anticipate in the unvaccinated group over 2 years with all the excess deaths and severe adverse events in the vaccinated group over the same time period. Doh.
Yes you are absolutely right that one needs to compare the effects of vaccine group vs control over the same time period – and based on Moderna’s known effect to date it’s clear that there would be significant protection against death and severe infection for at least 6 months, likely longer. So there will be breakthrough infections in the vaccine group, some leading to death, but all current evidence suggests these would be dramatically lower than in the unvaccinated control group.
I.e. this does not change the overall point that Classen fails to consider longer term effects at all, which fatally undermines the point he is trying to make. Even though (as above) most people would say his argument fails anyway even if you ignore these longer effects. But it depends how you feel about headaches vs death I suppose. Maybe you don’t think people’s deaths are worth headaches?
TBH it wasn’t a great summary of mine though. Further points:
1) Classen also fails to consider any symptoms as a result of COVID infections and so his point likely fails even IF you ignore any deaths and severe COVID infection. E.g. let’s assume moderna protection against infection wanes like a bandit and of the 15,000 group 80% get infected over 2 years – how many fevers over 39C would you expect? 3,000? 5,000? What other grade 3 and 4 symptoms would occur that you would need to account for when weighing the overall balance?
Classen I don’t think even accounts for these COVID symptoms even within the study period and his argument deficient on it’s own merits?
As you say one would need to also account for symptoms resulting from breakthrough infections as well, but as with deaths, current evidence suggests infection after vaccine is generally (but not always) less severe than with no vaccine.
I.e. over a longer timeframe deaths + severve COVID + grade 3+ symptoms will almostly certainly be much higher in the control group than the vaccine group. I would be amazed if this hasn’t already been modelled and is available somewhere.
2) The longer timeframe picture is complicated since you have to account for re-infections but also the possible protective effect of an infection on subsequent infections.
3) I said the adverse reactions were ‘cases’ – not true – they are events (i.e. 1 person can get multiple events)
Your point about long-term effects is a seperate one when weighing up the pros and cons of vaccination – we don’t yet know for sure the long term effects of COVID infection either, though there are worrying ‘dementia-like’ neurological signs in some people.
this is quite interesting Aunty J,
Additional autopsy evidence of causality: Although autopsies are not generally permitted, Dr Pete Schumacher, one of the world’s top pathologists (according to The Pathologists, and whose many posts include Acting Chairman of the German Society of Pathologists and Director of the Institute of Pathology), managed to carry out autopsies on 40 people who died within 2 weeks of a Covid injection. His conclusion was that 30-40% can be directly attributed to the injections. This leaves the possibility that a proportion of the remainder is also caused by the injections, but it is not possible to make the direct connection. It is no surprise that Dr Schumacher has been censored and his findings downplayed. More recently, at least a further 10 autopsies were carried out in Germany and doctors concluded that 7 were very probably caused by the vaccination, 1 was definitely not, and that the remaining one was inconclusive.
Don’t forget the author of the article Eshani King BSc (Hons) Biochemistry, FCA, CTA, BFP does not rely on any single source. There’s loads in here for you to get your teeth into…
https://www.independentinformation.co.uk/resources/articles/covid-vaccines-safe-effective
“Maybe you don’t think people’s deaths are worth headaches?”
I didn’t bother reading any more.
‘very quickly’ is vague isn’t it. ‘within 5 months’ doesn’t sound quite so alarming does it.
‘more likely to be infected’ is hard to untangle from behavioural changes resulting from knowing you are vaccinated. I don’t have a handle on the data for this, but it would be surprising if it were proven that vaccinated people become MORE susceptible to infection than unvaccinated not previusly infected people, purely due to the vaccine. Examples I have seen of people trying to show this often show flawed reasoning – though it doesn’t mean it’s not possible. The point still stands though that vaccination very likely changes people’s behaviour and certainly changes local restrictions – meaning infections will likely increase – see UK since June for an example of this.
‘more likely…to be infectious’ what evidence is there of this? I don’t have a handle on the data, but this would be very surprising?
Some of the most bizarre behaviour I have witnessed has come from the double jabbed. One I know embarked on a 2000 mile road trip as she was too scared to get on a plane. Others still wear masks, sometimes double, even when they are in settings where it is clearly pointless. Still others expect those visiting them or coming anywhere near them to be masked and jabbed.
All these behaviours just illustrate that the double jabbed have no confidence in their own injections.
Thanks Aunty J – i guess different people interpret things in different ways depending on their own beliefs/bias – extraordinarily difficult to be completely impartial.
But I do look forward to your considered comments. I will try and post some of the other many many clips that make up the whole comprehensive persuasive article and hope you may comment on these too.
https://www.independentinformation.co.uk/resources/articles/covid-vaccines-safe-effective
I’m guessing ‘fake journal’ you mean not publications like Eurosurveillance (PCR paper carry on), the Lancet (dodgy paper on treatment retracted, source of virus nonsense), the publication that pulled the recent ‘temporarily’ pulled the paper authored by Rose and McCullough about Myocarditis for no good reason) who are so heavily influenced by the pharmaceutical industry
What’s wrong with being anti-vaccine if he has a scientific argument against ?
As for the integrity of peer reviewed science, you get what you pay for!
I note your go to argument against his claims are ad-hom & to attempt to discredit the man not the science, says it all really.
….
Actually, it appears you can. There are many women reporting sudden changes in their menstrual cycles after people around them have had these jabs when they have not. You can dismiss this or you can listen to them.
The Public Health Act 1984 says – utterly specifically (s.45E) – that jabs CANNOT be mandated.
So if the government seeks to rely on this legislation, then not only will they be acting ultra vires – but completely unlawfully………
……but they’ve already done that with care home workers haven’t they? Which combined with the obscenely casual manner in which the Coronavirus Act extension was nodded through, means that we are being governed by despots.
The Covid Reovery Group is just a joke.
We are heading for a very dark place.
Jabs won’t be mandated. It’s just if you choose not to have them you will starve to death.
It would be very interesting and important indeed to get an update about the lawsuits by hc workers against that/their firing.
I don’t know whether any person has actually been fired here yet, whether they have sued and what the status of that lawsuit then is.
It could be that the government knows that ultimately it can’t enforce it, that its law will be ruled in conflict and void, and just banks on nudging again.
There would be the not so small matter of compensation for the hc workers then though.
I guess the government will leave care home owners to deal with it, who will then have to take the government to court. Good luck with that.
I know someone who manages a care home for the mentally handicapped.
4 workers out of 25 are refusing to be jabbed but they won’t be sacked until the last moment as thery are desperately needed and potential replacements are in very short supply.
I had an interesting chat with an unjabbed (but still employed) care worker yesterday. I know her because she cares for an unjabbed (because of distrust of the jab) bedbound friend of mine and the care agency does, for the time being at least, provide unjabbed carers for the few patients who request the services of an unjabbed carer.
The carer told me that one of her colleagues had no perceptible problem with the first two jabs but recently had her booster and has been seriously ill in hospital with multiple blood clots – she is likely to be on warfarin for the rest of her life. She also said that several other jabbed colleagues have admitted to her that, although they’ve not been clinically ill since their boosters, they “just don’t feel right”.
My sister knows of someone who got covid after their “booster” and died within 3 days.
Sadly “…may not include provision requiring a person to undergo medical treatment” doesn’t specify that the minister can’t place restrictions on the unjabbed. What is the limit of those restrictions? Apparently there isn’t one, so long as the minister considers it proportionate.
We are already at a very dark place.
At the end of the day, we have no rights or any laws that protect us that don’t rely ultimately on the power to enforce them.
Governments around the world are making rules and regulations that on legal challenge are being shown to be unlawful, let alone morally repugnant.
But the legal process is slow, governments persist anyway and most people comply anyway out of ignorance or intimidation or both.
The system only works if it is used in good faith. If it is hijacked, as it has, by those willing to abuse it to get their way, it leaves little protection.
In the end the only protection we have is the power, political or otherwise, we are able to Marshall against those that have hijacked our system.
That’s exactly how I see it.
“Our system” ?
Didn’t something similar happen in a central European country in the 1930’s? You wouldn’t think it could still happen these days. Marshall indeed!
Thank you; may I be pedantic and ask how “ultra vires” and “completely unlawfully” are in essence different – don’t see how any entity can be lawful if “they” do not possess the power to so “act” – ? ( not a trolling question, just interested to understand – have upticked BTW..)
And we’ll use direct democracy, mass people power, to oppose them.
Government by consent requires consent.
I was asked to mask this morning at the surgery for a blood check, told them I am exempt, politely refused. No problem.
Small victories, local action = national impact.
Bravo Neil….
A g/f of mine robustly was mask refusing last summer…yes it was bold… so I realized it was a good strategy for overt pushback, as was hugging folks… and shaking hands.
So this I started resuming too…
Yes SARS Cov2 is for real, but natural immunity is your best defense, when underpinned by the meds that if you mention get you struck off YouTube, Twitter, FaceCrook… and most MSM media.
So maskless I’ve been for a year now. If challenged I simply pitch the following, I’m exempt and suffer with chronic CFS.
95% this is enough.
If you do get asked what CFS is?
C O M M O N F U C K I N G S E N S E
In Wales, the virus can only get you or be spread by you when you are quietly walking through a shop, but it can’t do anything when you are walking through a restaurant or have a conversation at the bar or at your table.
Clever bugger, especially so in Wales.
Apparently I’m “extremely, clinically vulnerable” …as of March this year
but I’ve never worn a mask – exempted myself from the start, and have hugged and shaken hands with everyone. Our ASITP group causes all sorts of ripples and shocked stares when we all hug to say goodbye, and I’ve been fine…no…really well! No colds, flu nothing during this mess.
A very worthwhile clarification – and once again we come back to the tattered nature of constitutional protection in this country.
One clear flaw in the 1984 Act is the ability to interpret provisions of a ‘general nature’ about as widely as possible. Couple that with the arse-licking stance of the Court of Appeal, and you have fascist dynamite.
Clearly, there should, at very minimum, be a requirement for justification for such measures – not an openness to any barmy idea dreamed up by a venal government. At minimum, that should require a standard of scientific real world evidence.
On top of the lack of any prior evidence for most current government measures, eighteen months has provided further data confirming their inefficacy.
This should be a trigger, in law, for such measures to be ruled out as being useful when they clearly aren’t, so that it is simply not possible for a court to ignore rationality and accede to any whim of a barmy government.
… but I doubt on present evidence if many ‘honourable’ members have the intellectual/moral capacity to even begin to recognize the weight of these issues.
In German law proportionality/Verhaeltnismaessigkeit is always is a big thing in that regard and what can lead to court rulings against the government.
Not sure what the situation is in the UK.
Only if you want to call “lip service” a big thing – when it comes to any corona regulations, the court always rules that “proportionality” was indeed present.
The German constitution specific grants everyone a right of religious worship without state interference. This is one of the relatively few so-called basic rights (Grundrechte) which aren’t explicitly defined as being limited by legislation regarding their actual implementation. This implies that the Merkel government would have had to change the constitution in order to prohibit religious worship altogether (initially) or to limit it hygencially tolerable practices (later, mosty: the congregation must not sing hymns.
Obviously, the German government didn’t bother to do this. Constitutions are of no use against governments determined to ignore them: It’s legal if the police follows orders to enforce it.
When the majority of MPs have a majority of constituents who have fallen for the fear propaganda and the “vaccine narrative” nothing will change. Tory MPs have elderly supporters.
But I think almost everyone now knows someone who has got Covid double jabbed. And an increasing number know someone injured by the jab. Attitudes may be beginning to shift. Not fast enough yet.
I am going to rely a conversation I had with a work colleague I had some months back. He is 23, and has a flatmate of the same age:
Colleague: “I am a bit worried about my flatmate, she is very poorly. She spent nearly all yesterday and last night almost fitting. She has uncontrollable shakes, and she has developed a chronic migraine.”
Me: “Oh dear. Do you know what you think has caused it? What did the doctor say?”
Colleague: “We could only get a consultation as her surgery still isn’t seeing anyone face to face. She was advised to rest and monitor and to use over the counter pain relief. She has been working hard lately”
(she has worked from home since March 2020 for the record)
Me: “Just curious, when did she get her second vaccine shot? As I have been reading…”
At that point my colleague snapped his head my way and growled
“It’s not that. She has just been working too hard.”
Me: “Go on, if you’re confident it’s not that, then just tell me.”
Colleague: “Three days ago, but you haven’t seen how stressed she has been with work lately. I live with her, I know.”
I did continue for a little bit to try and make my point, but he flatly refused to even consider the notion. We sat in silence for most of the afternoon after that brief exchange.
I only mention this because, yes. Some adverse reactions are obvious its the vaccine. Others can be done with some logical deduction. Though only if the person hearing this information is willing to entertain the premise. I do wonder how many adverse reactions are ignored in terms of vaccine link, just out of plain mass psychosis.
My wife knows a woman who has a friend, who works with someone, who had a relative who had an acquaintance, whose sister’s colleague who read in the daily mail of a relative who had a 109-year-old mother who died from a positive PCR covid “test”.
The issue is that we have a system that relies on convention, good sense and restraint. Our laws seem to be generally created with that principle in mind.
But convention, good sense and restraint have all been abandoned. Without them our laws suddenly appear positively draconian.
What does it matter what the legislation does or doesn’t assert, when the establishments of judiciary are bankrupt of any impartiality.
All this guff about legalities is just a distraction, laws are there for one purpose, to protect the system, not its servants (the people).
The real question is why do we believe in the system?
“When tyranny becomes law, rebellion becomes duty”.
Thomas Jefferson
It’s a fact that the PHA 1984 has been used for most of the restriction-imposing legislation, but it’s overstating the case somewhat to call the CVA 2020 a “red herring”, when it
1) removes the liability of medics and other healthworkers for negligence where anything to do with treating Covid is concerned, and even when they’re doing work to which they’ve been transferred “because of Covid”;
2) has provisions enabling local authorities to commandeer facilities for the transport and cremation of large numbers of dead bodies; and
3) permits the postponement of elections.
Point 3 won’t trouble many MPs much.
Also it’s not accurate to say “only Parliament can create law”. But by means of the Judicial Review and Courts Bill, which has passed its second reading in the Commons, the current government does intend to crack down on the scope for law to be made by judges. Which is not to say we should have any more faith in judges than we do in MPs.
There’s no “constitution” in Britain. A constitution is a higher body of (obviously, written) law, where “higher” means that 1) proposed laws passed by the legislature can be struck down by a constitutional court if they don’t comply with it, and 2) the procedure for changing it is stricter than for lower laws.
Contrary to the BS, there is no constitution in Canada or NZ either. Sure, there are “Constitution Acts” in those countries, but they can be repealed by parliament in the same way as any other Act. If a person calls their cat a zebra it doesn’t become one.
The Saudi dictatorship’s position is that “the Koran is our constitution”, which is at least a position that makes sense.
Some say Israel doesn’t have a constitution, but actually it does, insofar as there are “higher laws” the alteration of which requires a supermajority in that regime’s parliament.
As far as I know, only four independent countries have no constitution: Britain, the two above-mentioned countries that Britain created, and Libya, which will probably soon get one.
This! ^^^^^ and I seem to remember that it is the CVA20 ( not the PHA ) which permits the police to take/”arrest”/detain anyone suspected of being a threat to public health, and to hold them for an unspecified (?) significant/inconvenient/distressing period of time at a place of detention, and a few other things to do with being able to interfere in families etc if someone is suspected of being a health threat.
The PHA requires the involvement of a JP for the police to take action against someone suspected of being a threat to public health as described ^^^^^^^, whereas the CVA has no such provision.
Exactly.
Yeah, I was enjoying your comment & in full agreement, until you wrote this.
That was pre-woke era, think you’ll find that’s not true any more.
Regards British constitution, I’ve heard arguments for & against, BTW have you listened to these podcasts by UK column?
https://www.ukcolumn.org/index.php/topic/constitution
I found them an interesting debate
Why would the government lock down again? The pandemic is over. If they do so it is clearly to fulfil some other political or economic purpose.
[And yes, Rich, I know this measure of excess mortality isn’t perfect but even going by these imperfect figures it is clear there is no public health emergency].
They want to start another lockdown in order to punish the unvaccinated and continue the state of distress the world has been under for almost 2 years now. They will blame the lockdown on the unvaccinated, implying that all that the vaccinated have sacrificed, all the time spent indoors, all the times they had to wear a mask, all the vaccines they took, were all for nothing because a few people have refused to get the vaccine.
As you can expect, the response from the population will most likely become violent. I predict that people will be assaulted in broad daylight for not being vaccinated. Lives may be lost as well. And the media will either not report on it, or will not say what triggered the attack, or, even worse, will call it a covid death.
This is all simply an extension of the same plan they have been using since at least the middle of the 20th century: Erase national cohesion, divide, and rule.
Fear Porn requires more subtlety. Give George Romero a call.
Come back in March and tell me that again.
Never mind in the streets, screaming people will be beaten in their own homes.
By the police.
We don’t have to speculate about that, given that it’s already happened.
It is important to remember that, though their voice may be silent for now, that there are still an awful lot of the unvaccinated, especially in younger age groups. Large minorities. They won’t be silenced for ever, and they will have sympathisers amongst the vaccinated .
I am not so sure… Let’s remember that it wasn’t the German people who took down the Nazis. Considerable armed effort was necessary. But, on the other hand, Eastern Europe was able to shake off communism by itself, so it remains a possibility. But the longer it take for everyone to wake up, the harder it becomes.
But, but, but the pandemic isn’t over it was on the news yesterday /sarc
It’s extraordinary that people who have seen something happen with their own eyes, would prefer to believe a broadcaster which tells them that they are wrong about what they saw.
“Why would the government lock down again? The pandemic is over.” There never really was a pandemic, and locking down is in any case nothing to do with actual pandemics or public health. I mean it may be in some of their deluded minds, but basically I think where we are now is that covid gives you almost unlimited power without responsibility so why would you want it to end?
Jabids message
‘If the NHS which I am in charge of fails I’m going to lock you all up’
Cheeky fucker I say
Which of course, it will.
It already has … a good few years ago.
“If another lockdown is imposed…” I’ll be going fucking postal
Basically the same stunt that Hitler pulled
That’s me in nick then.
Some of us did not like the idea of the renewal of the Coronavirus Act Without a Parliamentary Vote.I would like to remind all about the article published in this website. 20 October 2021
Take an opportunity to read it again to remind yourself of the reasons why it was thought it was not such a bad idea.
A Muslim is essentially threatening to cancel Christmas unless we submit to much more jabbing.
Muslims are far less likely to be jabbed, but there’s no threat to their culture.
Is he a Muslim? You shouldn’t go by appearances, I don’t think politicians have any religion,I don’t think they have any principles at all.
During the black death, some people were convinced sickness was being caused by Jews intentionally poisoning wells, hence, the burned them to stop the spread of the disease.
That should surely qualify as legitmate general regulation under the public health act, then: All experts agreed it was necessary.
The solution, therefore, is to vote against all MPs who are not in the Covid Recovery Group or who have not consistently spoken/voted against the Diktats.
“it has long been thought that getting Parliament to pass Acts for every piddling thing a government might wish to do would be time-consuming and get in the way of efficiency and expediency“
If it’s too piddling for parliament to bother with then it’s too piddling to be foisted on the British public.
The Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 received Royal Assent on 26 June 1984.
The former Health Secretary, Matt Hancock resigned and was replaced by Sajid David on 26 June 2021.
37 years = 444 months.
https://www.whataboutthewhen.com/the_number_37_and_triplets_111_to_999.html