The Government has opened a consultation on the NHS and social care vaccine mandates, entitled: “Revoking vaccination as a condition of deployment across all health and social care.” You can respond here.
It closes on Wednesday (February 16th), so if you intend to respond, don’t delay. Ex-footballer and lockdown and vaccine sceptic Matt Le Tissier has tweeted about it, questioning the reason for the short timeframe. If the Government intends (as it appears to) to revoke the mandates, however, then a shorter consultation may mean it can get on with it, ending the uncertainty and relieving the staff shortages in social care.
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.
It’s very short, won’t take long
No public confessions, please….
The questions are deliberately worded to trip people up. Please find the guide I copy-pasted below.
Yes, I noticed that. You have to read the questions very carefully!
You do but just as well don’t bother reading and just answer – this has all now reached a level of pure insanity and inequity that will bring its downfall. It’s so explicit now that you can taste how things are shifting, albeit slowly.
Some of the questions are basically double-negatives. Obviously a ploy to get the results they want. Oh, a bit like a YouGov poll !
Long Covid – a skivers’ charter?
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/long-covid-a-skivers-charter/
Roger Watson
Don’t get complacent. Let’s keep getting the message out with our friendly resistance.
Tuesday 15th February 2pm to 3pm
Yellow Boards By the Road
A321 – 141 Yorktown Rd,
(by Sandhurst Memorial Park Car Park)
Sandhurst GU47 9BN
Stand in the Park Sundays 10am make friends, ignore the madness & keep sane
Wokingham Howard Palmer Gardens Cockpit Path car park Sturges Rd RG40 2HD
Henley Mills Meadows (at the bandstand) Henley-on-Thames RG9 1DS
Telegram Group
http://t.me/astandintheparkbracknell
Done.
What a crappy consultation though.
I think the crappiness is intentional. They are mocking us.
A disappointingly awful survey form, with the saving grace that you can type in something at the end…
I am probably now on a register somewhere as ‘Enemy of the State’
My responses were under the name of Jonas Salk so should be OK.
See you in the gulag, then.
There are too many of us to be in there all at once, so I suppose we’ll have to go in shifts, get the treatment, then be allowed out for a while and monitored…….
Ha! Moment passed way back for me.
Have filled in the form, and agree that it is of very poor quality.
Why consult after threatening and coercing with it for months, and after supposedly cancelling it? Ass backwards.
If most people agree with the mandates, the ‘plebiscite’ proves gov was and is and will be correct?
What next, vote to rubber stamp wokery or the validity of multiple gender identities?
Needless to say if most participants are critical of mandates, their views are unrepresentative or will be ignored.
Evil things cannot be rubber stamped by a phoney democratic process. They remain wrong even if ALL people agree with them.
By backward asses.
Unbelievably lousy structure for the consultation, plus no e-mail address to allow you to send them a precise account of your views.
A friend gave up, as did I.
URGENT: The abolition, sorry ‘amendment’ of the Human Rights Act is probably a more vital consultation to respond to. It tries to partly replace individual rights by individual responsibilities and this pernicious concept of the ‘greater good’. Deadline 8th. March.
Yes, the HRA is a big worry, have done that one too, structure a bit better
There is a petition (for all the good it will do):
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/607712
I believe this is intentionally worded in the most convoluted way possible. “Not, negatively, with not being.” Had to re-read both questions to make sure they weren’t double-juking me into the wrong opinion.
I have just filled that survey in and berated them for their deliberately confusing questions. Shocking. Whatever happened to the campaign for clear English?
Anyway, I gave them a piece of my mind.
‘Clear English’ might have garnered them more of the type of response they don’t want?
Good job they didn’t give you a piece of their mind.
They couldn’t spare it
You are being optimistic if you think they have a mind.
Same here.
I watched Mrs Dee fill in her submission.
Nowhere does it bother to ask what one thought of vaccination as a way out of the covid mess.
Having just finished reading the first part of RFKennedy’s exposé of Fauci and his team of charlatans, I might ask why the push on vaccines when they went to such lengths to suppress any early medical interventions that might have saved many lives.
In particular, doctors sending home patients who presented with covid, so that they could either get better or end in hospital seemed to be the establishment-approved response.
Groups of doctors worldwide who teamed up to find and offer early intervention protocols were either silenced, threatened or written off as quacks (by the real quacks).
And all the time, wealth was transferred from the taxpayer to Big Pharma.
This survey won’t win any prizes from the Plain English campaign. One question in particular contains a double negative. Probably deliberate. Read everything carefully before you answer.
Double negatives come naturally for authors that have been trained in doublethink. What a nightmare it must be inside their contorted brains.
Yes, I thought it needed a good re-read, so as not to come a cropper.
That woman in red really needs to lose weight… it’s the truth….
Rarely do people talk about the communists book-burning (amongst endless other atrocities). Take China for example…
We are not allowed to discuss exacly what type of books were burnt, who wrote them, and why.
The consultation is garbage.
“How can the government increase uptake of the vaccine?”
What a load of crap.
Strangely enough, I received an email a couple of days ago, stating that as I’d signed the petition against mandatory vaccination, there was now a public consultation and a link was enclosed to complete the form. I loath everything about the Tory government but I do think it was a positive step to raise more awareness of the consultation.
I chose not to use the enclosed link but used a link I’d saved previously. Paranoid moi? Not at all.
Whenever I fill in Government questionnaires I feel very uneasy and slightly dirty. And as though I’m voluntarily identifying myself to the authorities ahead of some future nightmarish purge I’ve imagined.
Use this then. https://www.minuteinbox.com/ You can use it longer than a min if you need it. But it is a throwaway email box.
I completed the last one. I’ll complete this one too not that it will make any difference; they will do what they want.
Ah but….a “consultation” does tick a box.
They absolutely will do what they want. The so-called consultation is worthless.
This is taken from the Government response to the original consultation:
DHSC undertook thorough analysis of the more than 34,900 consultation responses and considered the feedback received. Overall, the consultation showed that, while a majority of respondents (65%) did not support the proposal, the responses from the health and social care sector were mixed, with some groups (for example managers of healthcare or social care services) mostly supporting the proposed legislative change while others (for example service users and relatives of service users) were mostly opposed.
So, apparently it doesn’t matter what us plebs think or want. It’s not us they want to consult with.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1032203/making-vaccination-a-condition-of-deployment-in-the-health-and-wider-social-care-sector-government-response.pdf
They consulted the nation about our membership of the EU in 2016 and look how hard they tried to ignore the result.
Suggested & template answers for some of the questions, to save time, esp the 2 “open questions” at the end. Obviously, check you agree before using.
Q) Which of the following best describes your preference for this requirement?
A) “I feel strongly that the requirement should be revoked”
Q) Thinking about yourself, your colleagues, your staff or care providers who are hesitant to get vaccinated, do you believe there are other steps (other than those set out in the original consultation) the government and the health and social care sector could take to increase vaccine uptake?
A) No
Q) Are there particular groups of people, such as those with protected characteristics, who would be particularly negatively affected by a COVID-19 vaccination not being a condition of deployment in healthcare and social care?
A) No
Q) Are there particular groups of people, such as those with protected characteristics, who would particularly benefit from a COVID-19 vaccination not being a condition of deployment in healthcare and social care?
A) Yes
Q) Which particular groups might be positively impacted and why?
A) Most people, and most patients, health workers, carers, would be positively impacted. There’s increasing evidence indicating vaccines are ineffective, and that natural immunity from having Covid is effective. There’s growing evidence of vaccines causing harm. Mandatory vaccines would cause loss of highly skilled staff, which would add to staff/skill shortfalls and worsen waiting lists, both of which are already dire. Avoiding this will be highly beneficial, retaining skilled staff, and improving waiting lists.
Q) What actions can the government and the health and social care sectors take to protect those with protected characteristics or the groups you’ve identified, if a COVID-19 vaccination is not a condition of deployment?
A) Major government changes are needed. We need people who truly care in power, not people with the most business connections or the highest budget to market themselves. A full scale review of government spending must be conducted. The government spent at least £10bn on the Covid test and trace programme, and £15bn on personal protective equipment (actual figures may be higher, more research needed). How much true benefit for the people did this result in ? Could that money have been better spent ? A full scale review of health care protocols/processes must be conducted. Very concerning reports have emerged about procedures that don’t seem designed to protect people’s health, eg procedures regarding do-not-resuscitate orders, the administering of midazolam, and the use of ventilators.
From #strongertogether
Not at all:
The coercion continues – behind the scenes – despite covid ‘vaccines’ increasing the risk of infection in the vaccinees by 2 to 3 times.
Given the risk of serious adverse effects from the ‘vaccines’, this coercion goes against the Nuremberg code.
Savage Jabbit is guilty of crimes against humanity.
As usual, the words in this ‘consultation’ are deliberately vague and herd you into giving the ‘correct’ answer. I’ve pasted below some guidance to help anyone interested …
THIS LINK HAS TEMPLATE ANSWERS TO SAVE TIME, ESP FOR 2 “OPEN QUESTIONS” AT END :
https://pastelink.net/supvh8r9
Please complete : brief official survey (4 or 5 minutes)
https://consultations.dhsc.gov.uk/61fd3b71f0d963706f2a7193
Suggested & template answers for some of the questions, to save time, esp the 2 “open questions” at the end.
Obviously, check you agree before using.
——————————————-
Q) Which of the following best describes your preference for this requirement?
A) “I feel strongly that the requirement should be revoked”
———————————————-
Q) Thinking about yourself, your colleagues, your staff or care providers who are hesitant to get vaccinated, do you believe there are other steps (other than those set out in the original consultation) the government and the health and social care sector could take to increase vaccine uptake?
A) No
————————————————–
Q) Are there particular groups of people, such as those with protected characteristics, who would be particularly negatively affected by a COVID-19 vaccination not being a condition of deployment in healthcare and social care?
A) No
——————————————-
Q) Are there particular groups of people, such as those with protected characteristics, who would particularly benefit from a COVID-19 vaccination not being a condition of deployment in healthcare and social care?
A) Yes
————————————————————
Q) Which particular groups might be positively impacted and why?
A)
Most people, and most patients, health workers, carers, would be positively impacted.
There’s increasing evidence indicating vaccines are ineffective, and that natural immunity from having Covid is effective.
There’s growing evidence of vaccines causing harm.
Mandatory vaccines would cause loss of highly skilled staff, which would add to staff/skill shortfalls and worsen waiting lists, both of which are already dire.
Avoiding this will be highly beneficial, retaining skilled staff, and improving waiting lists.
————————————————————
Q) What actions can the government and the health and social care sectors take to protect those with protected characteristics or the groups you’ve identified, if a COVID-19 vaccination is not a condition of deployment?
A)
Major government changes are needed. We need people who truly care in power, not people with the most business connections or the highest budget to market themselves.
A full scale review of government spending must be conducted.
The government spent at least £10bn on the Covid test and trace programme, and £15bn on personal protective equipment (actual figures may be higher, more research needed). How much true benefit for the people did this result in ? Could that money have been better spent ?
A full scale review of health care protocols/processes must be conducted.
Very concerning reports have emerged about procedures that don’t seem designed to protect people’s health, eg procedures regarding do-not-resuscitate orders, the administering of midazolam, and the use of ventilators.
Is this the government taking advice on mandatory vaccinations as per the Dr. James and Jarvid conversation which took place at the beginning of January this year?
I argge with others.Questions are in English but written to trick you.
I filled it in but it is quite obvious that, with the questionaire being focussed solely on the needs and sensitivities of people with supposed ‘protected characteristics’, the rest of societly do not matter to this govt.
Its a classic example of cultural Marxism in action. Those practicing cultural Marxism in order to destroy Western civilisation split society into two main groups – the oppressors and their victims. The ‘oppressors’ are straight White males and the ‘oppressed’ are people defined by our Marxist govt as having ‘protected characteristics’ ie women, blacks, gays etc.
The end game is to grow the numbers of ‘oppressed’ and empower them enough to topple/replace the ‘oppressors’. In other words, in the long term, the plan is to destroy a strong and powerful society that succeeded simply because it was dominated by trail-blazing straight White men.
This is why, in the consultation described above, the govt is only interested in attending to the sensitivities and meeting the needs of people who are NOT straight White men.
On Friday I received an email directing me to the ‘consultation’ because I had signed the petition against vax requirement.
At the end of the form are questions along the lines of: Any instances where this mandate would be good/bad for certain groups of people needing care. I basically said that not mandating would benefit all, because if mandated, then staff numbers and staff motivation/morale would be affected. Also, I mentioned naturally acquired immunity of staff vs vax ‘immunity’.
They don’t seem too fussed ‘consulting the public’ beforehand for all their impositions. Anyway, this is just more bullshit – just going through the motions type stuff.
Have fun – leading questions as usual with this garbage. Did it earlier in the week and commented to my heart’s content.
Loved the double negatives on a couple of questions – they could not make their mind up what they want you to answer obviously!
Disgustingly worded survey as ever. The original ‘consultation’ document recorded 65% of respondents against mandation. That was ignored, seemingly because an opinion poll they commissioned claimed the public were in favour. I’m not holding my breath.
Please, please, PLEASE can we have a rest from these disgusting pictures of muzzled harpies injecting muzzled zombies?
No – wonderful being muzzled. Love it. Greatest thing on planet Earth. Who could not be orgasmic at being muzzled? Mask and be proud! Show your true self – inane and fundamentally flawed. Oops, something went wrong there.
Have spent ages trying to work out what this means…. ‘are there particular groups of people, such as those with protected characteristics, who would be particularly negatively affected by a Covid 19 vaccination not being a condition of deployment in health care and social care?’ As I read it it is asking…..who would be worse off by there not being a vaccine mandate? My answer would be nobody but I think I may have fallen into a trap I can’t see.
I have yet to do it but from comments and docs it appears
And you really think it’ll make a difference what any of us, the plebs, say?
What that consultation tells us is that the NHS is obsessed with putting people in categories and boxes, rather than treating people as individuals.
95% of it is categorisation. Othering people into ‘in-group’ and ‘out-group’. We would do well to stripping labelling from the NHS. That alone would save millions and allow front-line staff to get the job done.
Done already. Made it clear that discriminating against the unjabbed when the jabbed can also get and pass on Covid is nothing more than pure discrimination. Hence unacceptable in a democratic country. Even one on its last legs