2022 Mandatory Vaccines in U.K Predictions?

[Greenhulk50]

If Austria go ahead with the mandatory covid vaccines in 2022 will other countries be next like the U.K to make it compulsory and what are your predictions for 2022 ?

 

 

 

 

 

[Athenry04]

They need consent, so they can force it upon you, but ultimately you have to agree, even if it's under duress.  All bets off for next year, I just wanna try and get to Xmas here in QLD.

[DarianF]

8 minutes ago, Athenry04 said:

ultimately you have to agree, even if it's under duress.

 

Consent provided under duress is NOT legally valid. See: https://darianfentos.writeas.com/when-consent-to-vaccination-is-not-legally-valid

[Athenry04]

2 minutes ago, DarianF said:

 

Consent provided under duress is NOT legally valid. See: https://darianfentos.writeas.com/when-consent-to-vaccination-is-not-legally-valid

 

Thank fuck. No idea how they doing it in the NT then, as I can't see some of those lads consenting.

[DarianF]

1 minute ago, Athenry04 said:

 

Thank fuck. No idea how they doing it in the NT then, as I can't see some of those lads consenting.

 

This is Australian Government official - https://immunisationhandbook.health.gov.au/vaccination-procedures/preparing-for-vaccination - under 'valid consent' they make it very clear, consent under duress is not legally valid.

 

So how are all these states getting away with this?

 

I have no idea. If anyone challenged in court they would probably win. But who has those kinds of resources behind them.

[Athenry04]

1 minute ago, DarianF said:

 

This is Australian Government official - https://immunisationhandbook.health.gov.au/vaccination-procedures/preparing-for-vaccination - under 'valid consent' they make it very clear, consent under duress is not legally valid.

 

So how are all these states getting away with this?

 

I have no idea. If anyone challenged in court they would probably win. But who has those kinds of resources behind them.

Defo, loss of income is absolutely duress. I'd imagine the courts would be rigged against anyone that tried also.

[DarianF]

5 minutes ago, Athenry04 said:

Defo, loss of income is absolutely duress. I'd imagine the courts would be rigged against anyone that tried also.

 

Yeah totally. The game is rigged mate. They would just drain every cent from you then give you a corrupt judge and you would have no chance.

[bamboozooka]

90% of over 50's queued up for the clot shot as it was only offered.

theres your consent

[Guest]

In the UK there is still a law which states:

 

45E Medical treatment

(1)Regulations under section 45B or 45C may not include provision requiring a person to undergo medical treatment.

(2)“ Medical treatment ” includes vaccination and other prophylactic treatment.

 

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/22/section/45E

 

So unless they change that, they can't force vax (working on the principle that they will abide by their laws) .... I consider that 'law' is why masks were not compulsory as they come under a prophylactic and anyone could just say "exempt".

 

They also cannot imprison you but they can force quarantine you <<<< really what is the fucking difference?

 

So if they drag you off to a 'camp' somewhere .... what may happen?

 

• Maybe you will not be able to leave until you agree to be fully injected.
• or .... oops we seem to have injected you when you slept .... our mistake but as you know, no one is liable for anything to do with the injection.
• or .... so sorry but you died with covid-9mm (well you wouldn't take the jab would you and we tried to help .... yes dear msm it was their own fault for not "following the science")
• or some real nasty bullshit??

 

Reminds me of this video .... Do not get in the van (do not get forced to a quarantine facility)

 

 

Edited November 24, 2021 by ink

[HAARPING_On]

1 hour ago, DarianF said:

 

Consent provided under duress is NOT legally valid. See: https://darianfentos.writeas.com/when-consent-to-vaccination-is-not-legally-valid

 

Out of likes. spot on. I covered this in the megathread. They NEED consent. Mandatory is not law.

[HAARPING_On]

I'll just leave this here too from The Conservative Woman...

 

THE news that Austria intends to enforce mandatory Covid-19 vaccination next year raises some interesting legal questions. For, unless of course they intend to continue hiding behind emergency rule by diktat, legislation will surely be required.

To, as it were, hold someone down and forcibly inject them is akin to subduing a dangerous inmate in a hospital prison for the criminally insane. It therefore requires a robust and sure-footed legal process.

 

Clearly a serious crime has been committed by the person being subdued. So first, define the crime. At best, it is one of omission. But it must provably be an imminent threat of violence against others. The unvaccinated must present such a threat. How can that threat be legally defined? They are carriers of a deadly disease which threatens others’ lives. Who are these others? The vaccinated. Now it’s already becoming a bit of an old chestnut, but if they’re vaccinated against this deadly disease, how are they threatened? We already know the answer to that. They are NOT vaccinated against it, despite being vaccinated. Therefore, surely they are as much a threat to each other as the unvaccinated are supposed to be to them.

 

It will also be necessary to define deadly disease. For a legal argument, figures (i.e. evidence) will be required. Even the British Government’s own distorted figures of death from Covid (everyone who died within 28 days of a positive and bogus PCR test, whatever the true cause of death) would hardly measure up to a deadly disease (there are something like 10,000 council wards in the UK with an average population of 6,500; using the Government’s own exaggerated figures, an average of fewer than ten people per year per ward have died of Covid – not exactly bubonic plague or Ebola).

 

The legal case for mandatory vaccination against Covid could never hold water, not even in the hands of a crooked judge. Which suggests that governments would indeed revert to emergency powers signalling, for the avoidance of all doubt, the concomitant establishment of barefaced and permanent totalitarianism.

 

https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/mandatory-jabs-legally-impossible/

[bobb]

38 minutes ago, HAARPING_On said:

 

Out of likes. spot on. I covered this in the megathread. They NEED consent. Mandatory is not law.

I agree with the duress issue, no court will ever uphold a claim while the defendant was under duress it does not matter whether you had a gun at your head at the time of consent or you were terrified by the media telling you repeatedly that if you got the sniffles you will be dead in 28 days, the best that can be said for those that got injected is they did it voluntarily as part of an experiment to stop said imaginary virus, now i know that sounds harsh on those that did get injected but i will offer anyone help and support in their hour of need regardless of status, and please remember all the pcr test's were bogus from the start, Karry mullis the inventor of the test said you can find anything in anyone with it, and yes if you did go looking for small pox you would find it, because the way i understand what a virus is once you have it you have it for life, permanently no exceptions, the reason you are not dead from it is your body has the instruction set to deal with it, if it did not you would not be conversing in this topic. no? We all agreed on that?

[ItsTheTruthThough]

On 11/24/2021 at 10:27 AM, Athenry04 said:

They need consent, so they can force it upon you, but ultimately you have to agree, even if it's under duress.  All bets off for next year, I just wanna try and get to Xmas here in QLD.

Anything done under duress does not count as consent since it’s under duress.

[JONJAY79]

On 11/24/2021 at 10:44 AM, DarianF said:

 

This is Australian Government official - https://immunisationhandbook.health.gov.au/vaccination-procedures/preparing-for-vaccination - under 'valid consent' they make it very clear, consent under duress is not legally valid.

 

So how are all these states getting away with this?

 

I have no idea. If anyone challenged in court they would probably win. But who has those kinds of resources behind them.

 

 

If the elite can force global lockdown then they can try and force global vaxxed. But unfortunately for them too many people are waking up and seeing the bigger picture.

 

They must be panicking by now because resistance is growing and without compliance they have no power. 

[Ethel]

There's no fucking mandatory vaccine. If someone has difficulty understanding the word 'no', and they approach you to forcibly inject something into your body, you have an inalienable right to defend yourself...