Mr H Posted November 3, 2020 Share Posted November 3, 2020 7 minutes ago, FrankVitali said: No problem. But , yes that is the question @Mr H ! Why exactly. That I cannot answer. Perhaps they want to cull those who are able to think for themselves. Governments would be happier with an underling population that follows and takes orders. Those who do not, might have a special place to go to. This real life simulation might just be to get "their ducks in a row", if you know the saying? e.g. see how people respond. How easy is it for the government to get people to do what they want ? Well it could be explained by the "government" i.e. Boris etc actually thinking that there would be hundreds of thousands of deaths, saw china build loads of hospitals and followed suit. Personally I find this a more plausible explanation for the additional hospitals being built - especially if we factor in that Boris was very ill with "the virus" and that he believes anything that his two chief scientific advisors tell him. Whether he has been influenced behind the scenes by other people with other intentions is also a possibility. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdvaitaV Posted November 3, 2020 Share Posted November 3, 2020 23 minutes ago, shadowmoon said: Hi at the top of your reply there is an icon like a chain, open that and paste the links in. Thank you! I'm a dinosaur! ;-) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wingwang Posted November 3, 2020 Share Posted November 3, 2020 59 minutes ago, Given To Fly said: compulsory vaccinations .... That's a real 'this shit just got real' moment right there for anyone sitting on the sidelines... 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nobby Noboddy Posted November 3, 2020 Share Posted November 3, 2020 34 minutes ago, MR-E said: good to hear that.. I was starting to think something was wrong with me -I find it hard when entering shops now, knowing im going to say something !! Its becoming harder to manage my episodes & its getting worse......... So decided would speak with the doctor explained the problem asked him when is this pandemic going to go away? his reply you'll need to ask the politicians ..... careful now. You know it only takes one person to section you now don't you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdvaitaV Posted November 3, 2020 Share Posted November 3, 2020 https://helpfreetheearth.com/News_1600/news1714_songbird.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greatdayforfreedom Posted November 3, 2020 Share Posted November 3, 2020 7 minutes ago, FrankVitali said: No problem. But , yes that is the question @Mr H ! Why exactly. That I cannot answer. Perhaps they want to cull those who are able to think for themselves. Governments would be happier with an underling population that follows and takes orders. Those who do not, might have a special place to go to. This real life simulation might just be to get "their ducks in a row", if you know the saying? e.g. see how people response ? Nothing would give them greater pleasure than to cull the likes of us, after all, we are getting in the way of their plan. Even the sheep wouldn't mind that, they would clap and cheer as we were taken away to the concentration camps to be executed. The slaves and the enslavers all lived happily ever after. The end. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdvaitaV Posted November 3, 2020 Share Posted November 3, 2020 1 minute ago, wingwang said: That's a real 'this shit just got real' moment right there for anyone sitting on the sidelines... Fantastic find. Deserves to be disseminated widely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarianF Posted November 3, 2020 Share Posted November 3, 2020 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Mikhail Liebestein said: And Australia with its $66,600 fine: https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3258/rr-17 If this is correct, then it takes a massive dump on the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights (Article 6 – Consent), which reads, "Any preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention is only to be carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information. The consent should, where appropriate, be express and may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without disadvantage or prejudice" [ http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=31058&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html ]. Edited November 3, 2020 by DarianF Typo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrankVitali Posted November 3, 2020 Share Posted November 3, 2020 3 minutes ago, Mr H said: Well it could be explained by the "government" i.e. Boris etc actually thinking that there would be hundreds of thousands of deaths, saw china build loads of hospitals and followed suit. Personally I find this a more plausible explanation for the additional hospitals being built - especially if we factor in that Boris was very ill with "the virus" and that he believes anything that his two chief scientific advisors tell him. Whether he has been influenced behind the scenes by other people with other intentions is also a possibility. Yeah, the trouble is, I am a lot more sceptical and cynical. I am taking the approach that Johnson knew from the get go that this was all a load of bollox. So on that assumption. If I were Johnson, and I knew this was a planned farce. Why would I build all these hospitals? Keeping in mind its a fact that most of the existing hospitals country-wide are actually emptier than ever; as is the covid testing sites. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarianF Posted November 3, 2020 Share Posted November 3, 2020 3 minutes ago, AdvaitaV said: Fantastic find. Deserves to be disseminated widely. I found the HTML version: https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/9253/html/ 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nobby Noboddy Posted November 3, 2020 Share Posted November 3, 2020 1 minute ago, wingwang said: That's a real 'this shit just got real' moment right there for anyone sitting on the sidelines... Hopefully there are still enough people awake to kick this vaccination shit into the toilet where it belongs. It's been done before. Right from the earliest days of vaccination (a money making scheme from the outset) people have resisted en-mass. We just have to hope that there's enough fire in bellies to do this. For those ready to fight, know this: There is a rich, long and intense heritage of resistance to this pseudo-scientific, masonic weapon. We have resisted for as long as they have persisted and we have had many victories. 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrankVitali Posted November 3, 2020 Share Posted November 3, 2020 13 minutes ago, Mikhail Liebestein said: And Australia with its $66,600 fine: https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3258/rr-17 Sorry what, did you just say 666? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted November 3, 2020 Share Posted November 3, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, FrankVitali said: I'd like to modestly admit that I am fairly intellectual, and to build these hospitals just to sit empty defies sense. No, they have built them for a purpose for sure. Daft as Johnson et al. may seem. They are not. Make no mistake, the government and other powers that be, eg. Rothschild etc will already have their next moves planned well in advance. That is the point I am making; I think a more serious pathogen will be released. I think this is all a bit of a real life simulation tbh. An alternative is to put the un-vaccinated folks there. edit: ( contradicting myself a bit here ). Maybe that should read "those that do not comply". Often I have thought, if they want to reduce the population, why wouldn't you just launch a few nukes around the world. I am not all sure if this is about depopulation, but rather enslavement. Queen ants don't kill the worker ants. lol Well so long as they don't piss off the queen ant :) I've been thinking this lately too. This is all to lull us into a false, perverted sense of security. More of the mainstream are picking up on the stats and people like Peter Hitchens and Toby Young are pushing the MSM version of the anti lockdown narrative here in the UK. There must be millions of people here that are wondering why they don't know anyone who's had 'the virus'. I thinks it's not beyond the realms of possibility that a real pathogen could be released in early 2021. I think the Deagel population forecast for 2025 is beginning to hold more weight too. Here is an article from 2018 which talks about that and Mr Gates plan to try and develope a 'universal' flu vaccine and begin human trials in 2021. http://fromthetrenchesworldreport.com/deagel-makes-mysterious-changes-to-2025-population-forecast-for-america-as-bill-gates-launches-grand-challenge-the-holy-grail-of-influenza-research-and-bridging-the-valley This, coupled with the predictive programming efforts of the movie Songbird, mentioned earlier in the thread, lead me to think that this shit is going to get really ugly. I've been thinking a lot lately, too much probably, but I believe that 'they' must have now successfully infiltrated nearly every government in the world so deeply that they feel emboldened to stop with the totalitarian tiptoe and get in with the final sprint. It makes me feel sad, for my kids, for the people who don't know what's coming and for everyone in here too. I'm also angry at what has been taken from us. Tonight I've been watching this. https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=IRPMleRa-cA It's nothing related to this, just someone walking around Quebec City at Christmas time in the snow. It's evening and there are people enjoying the snow and the cafes and shops. There won't be any of that this year. 'They' have taken it from us. They hate us and they will stop at nothing to consolidate their power. Edited November 3, 2020 by Doc 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrankVitali Posted November 3, 2020 Share Posted November 3, 2020 47 minutes ago, Tamlinn said: Another reason not to take the vaccine: an increase in HIV in men. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)32156-5/fulltext Hmm.. Judy Mikovits makes an HIV connection in the Plandemic documentary, www.plandemicseries.com Although not sure from memory if she is referring to vaccine or the actual coronavirus? Also this from some time back: "Some experts initially suspected that the Wuhan coronavirus was a manmade disease, modified to be more lethal and virulent through weaponized HIV and Ebola insertions. But now, most scientists believe the virus is naturally-occurring, and those bizarre similarities with HIV and Ebola are just chance mutations." https://www.ccn.com/proof-that-coronavirus-came-from-a-chinese-lab-may-trigger-a-stock-market-crash/ Personally I don't agree with the above statement about naturally occurring. Heck I am not sure if the virus even exists, but just passing it on.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ziggy Sawdust Posted November 3, 2020 Share Posted November 3, 2020 (edited) 19 minutes ago, DarianF said: If this is correct, then it takes a massive dump on the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights (Article 6 – Consent), which reads, "Any preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention is only to be carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information. The consent should, where appropriate, be express and may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without disadvantage or prejudice" [ http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=31058&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html ]. Edited November 3, 2020 by Ziggy Sawdust Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jesuitsdidit Posted November 3, 2020 Share Posted November 3, 2020 1 hour ago, Given To Fly said: compulsory vaccinations .... Introduction from your PDF Written evidence from Dr Lisa Forsberg*, Dr Isra Black**, Dr Thomas Douglas*, Dr Jonathan Pugh* (COV0220) Compulsory vaccination for Covid-19 and human rights law 5 Introduction and summary We are academics working in the areas of philosophy and law, with specialisations in, inter alia, moral and political philosophy, biomedical ethics, health law, and human rights law. Our submission pertains to compulsory Covid-19 vaccination:1 a requirement on 10 individuals to undergo vaccination as a condition of release from pandemic-related restrictions on liberty, including on movement and association.2 Our evidence is forward-looking. We expect that a Covid-19 vaccine will become available in sufficient quantity to enable population-wide immunisation.3 At that stage, the Government will need to consider the means of delivery, including whether it is 15 necessary to legislate for compulsory vaccination. We consider the human rights law dimensions of compulsory vaccination by reference to the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Convention on Human Rights. As such, our submission primarily addresses a live issue the second question in the Committee’s call for evidence: What will the impact of specific measures taken by Government to address the 20 25 30 Covid-19 pandemic be on human rights in the UK? Our evidence takes the following form: 1. A discussion of the reasons why compulsory vaccination may need to be considered; 2. An overview of relevant legal provisions; 3. An examination of the human rights law compliance of compulsory vaccination. Our analysis under 3 establishes two parity arguments: a. If Covid-19 ‘lockdown’ measures are compatible with human rights law, then it is arguable that compulsory vaccination is too (lockdown parity argument); b. If compulsory medical treatment under mental health law for personal and public protection purposes is compatible with human rights law, then it is arguable that compulsory vaccination is too (mental health parity argument). *University of Oxford; ** University of York. 1We note that there is disagreement about what compulsion means and as to whether different kinds of non-voluntary vaccination schemes are in fact compulsory schemes. This is in part a theoretical disagreement, and in part a practical one to do with the nature of state sanctions that back any scheme. See Emma Cave, ‘Voluntary vaccination: the pandemic effect’ (2017) 37(2) LS 279-304. In this submission, we take a coarse-grained or bird’s eye view of the issue, that is, we will not engage here with the detail of specific policy schema for compulsory vaccination. 2Much of our argument is applicable, mutatis mutandis, to Covid-19 prophylactic treatment. For clarity and brevity, we focus on vaccination. 3The UK Government has purchased 190m doses of three vaccine candidates, either on risk or in principle: Sarah Bosely, ‘UK secures deals for 90m doses of coronavirus vaccine’ The Guardian (20 July 2020) https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/20/uk-deals-doses-coronavirus-vaccine 20/07/20. Our chief conclusion is that, as and when a vaccine becomes available at scale, the Government should give serious consideration to compulsory immunisation as a 35 means of reducing the impacts of Covid-19. There is an arguable case for the compatibility of compulsory vaccination with human rights law. 1. Vaccine hesitancy A Covid-19 vaccine promises to be the best means to mitigate the impacts of the pandemic on individuals and society. Yet sufficient voluntary uptake of a vaccine 40 cannot be guaranteed.4 Voluntary vaccine uptake may be limited by ‘vaccine hesitancy’, which the World Health Organization (WHO) describes as ‘the reluctance or refusal to vaccinate despite the availability of vaccines’.5 Vaccine hesitancy in respect of Covid19 may arise because of the influence of anti-vaccination movements, the uneven demographic distribution of Covid-19 morbidity and mortality risks,6 or the mistaken 45 belief that Covid-19 immunity has already been acquired. Should a Covid-19 vaccine become available at scale, we cannot expect sufficient voluntary uptake. It is necessary for the Government to consider a policy of compulsory vaccination, with appropriate exceptions.7 Such a policy requires an assessment of its impact on human rights Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrankVitali Posted November 3, 2020 Share Posted November 3, 2020 This bloke says it as it is. He is top, ex judge Q.C.. and should be put in touch with World Doctors Alliance, and Corona Ausschuss https://corona-ausschuss.de/. Listen to him for 10 minutes. He's a good chap to have on our side. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted November 3, 2020 Share Posted November 3, 2020 3 minutes ago, jesuitsdidit said: Introduction from your PDF Written evidence from Dr Lisa Forsberg*, Dr Isra Black**, Dr Thomas Douglas*, Dr Jonathan Pugh* (COV0220) Compulsory vaccination for Covid-19 and human rights law 5 Introduction and summary We are academics working in the areas of philosophy and law, with specialisations in, inter alia, moral and political philosophy, biomedical ethics, health law, and human rights law. Our submission pertains to compulsory Covid-19 vaccination:1 a requirement on 10 individuals to undergo vaccination as a condition of release from pandemic-related restrictions on liberty, including on movement and association.2 Our evidence is forward-looking. We expect that a Covid-19 vaccine will become available in sufficient quantity to enable population-wide immunisation.3 At that stage, the Government will need to consider the means of delivery, including whether it is 15 necessary to legislate for compulsory vaccination. We consider the human rights law dimensions of compulsory vaccination by reference to the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Convention on Human Rights. As such, our submission primarily addresses a live issue the second question in the Committee’s call for evidence: What will the impact of specific measures taken by Government to address the 20 25 30 Covid-19 pandemic be on human rights in the UK? Our evidence takes the following form: 1. A discussion of the reasons why compulsory vaccination may need to be considered; 2. An overview of relevant legal provisions; 3. An examination of the human rights law compliance of compulsory vaccination. Our analysis under 3 establishes two parity arguments: a. If Covid-19 ‘lockdown’ measures are compatible with human rights law, then it is arguable that compulsory vaccination is too (lockdown parity argument); b. If compulsory medical treatment under mental health law for personal and public protection purposes is compatible with human rights law, then it is arguable that compulsory vaccination is too (mental health parity argument). *University of Oxford; ** University of York. 1We note that there is disagreement about what compulsion means and as to whether different kinds of non-voluntary vaccination schemes are in fact compulsory schemes. This is in part a theoretical disagreement, and in part a practical one to do with the nature of state sanctions that back any scheme. See Emma Cave, ‘Voluntary vaccination: the pandemic effect’ (2017) 37(2) LS 279-304. In this submission, we take a coarse-grained or bird’s eye view of the issue, that is, we will not engage here with the detail of specific policy schema for compulsory vaccination. 2Much of our argument is applicable, mutatis mutandis, to Covid-19 prophylactic treatment. For clarity and brevity, we focus on vaccination. 3The UK Government has purchased 190m doses of three vaccine candidates, either on risk or in principle: Sarah Bosely, ‘UK secures deals for 90m doses of coronavirus vaccine’ The Guardian (20 July 2020) https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/20/uk-deals-doses-coronavirus-vaccine 20/07/20. Our chief conclusion is that, as and when a vaccine becomes available at scale, the Government should give serious consideration to compulsory immunisation as a 35 means of reducing the impacts of Covid-19. There is an arguable case for the compatibility of compulsory vaccination with human rights law. 1. Vaccine hesitancy A Covid-19 vaccine promises to be the best means to mitigate the impacts of the pandemic on individuals and society. Yet sufficient voluntary uptake of a vaccine 40 cannot be guaranteed.4 Voluntary vaccine uptake may be limited by ‘vaccine hesitancy’, which the World Health Organization (WHO) describes as ‘the reluctance or refusal to vaccinate despite the availability of vaccines’.5 Vaccine hesitancy in respect of Covid19 may arise because of the influence of anti-vaccination movements, the uneven demographic distribution of Covid-19 morbidity and mortality risks,6 or the mistaken 45 belief that Covid-19 immunity has already been acquired. Should a Covid-19 vaccine become available at scale, we cannot expect sufficient voluntary uptake. It is necessary for the Government to consider a policy of compulsory vaccination, with appropriate exceptions.7 Such a policy requires an assessment of its impact on human rights We aren't going to beat this shit by accepting that, basically, its the TPTB that give us our human rights through their legal system. In my opinion it is up to the individual to decide what shite they put in their body. Not some fucking lawyer or government. If the vaccine is made mandatory its a clear sign that they believe they own you. If you take it without a fight you are confirming and acknowledging the fact that THEY OWN YOU. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr H Posted November 3, 2020 Share Posted November 3, 2020 23 minutes ago, Nobby Noboddy said: Hopefully there are still enough people awake to kick this vaccination shit into the toilet where it belongs. It's been done before. Right from the earliest days of vaccination (a money making scheme from the outset) people have resisted en-mass. We just have to hope that there's enough fire in bellies to do this. For those ready to fight, know this: There is a rich, long and intense heritage of resistance to this pseudo-scientific, masonic weapon. We have resisted for as long as they have persisted and we have had many victories. I hope the same as you. But realistically speaking. The current strategy is to lockdown whenever the R rate goes too high - until a vaccine comes. This means realistically, we will be locked down at least intermittently until then (they're suggesting spring). So that would have meant over 12 months of lock down - with a lot of that in proper lockdown - following a dark winter. I can't see many people resisting a way out after such torment. I am sad to say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nobby Noboddy Posted November 3, 2020 Share Posted November 3, 2020 2 minutes ago, FrankVitali said: This bloke says it as it is. He is top, ex judge Q.C.. and should be put in touch with World Doctors Alliance, and Corona Ausschuss https://corona-ausschuss.de/. Listen to him for 10 minutes. He's a good chap to have on our side. I'm sorry, I don't mean to be rude but - 'Is he fuck' would be my favoured reactionary phrase. ANYONE who is allowed a prominent voice is a (knowing or unknowing) shill. He looks well fed off his establishment past (and present?) so why the fuck would I listen to him? Looks like a paedo to me too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nobby Noboddy Posted November 3, 2020 Share Posted November 3, 2020 4 minutes ago, Doc said: We aren't going to beat this shit by accepting that, basically, its the TPTB that give us our human rights through their legal system. In my opinion it is up to the individual to decide what shite they put in their body. Not some fucking lawyer or government. If the vaccine is made mandatory its a clear sign that they believe they own you. If you take it without a fight you are confirming and acknowledging the fact that THEY OWN YOU. Right on Doc. Be free or fuck off. If only people knew what a wanker Pasteur was, how germ theory is bollocks and contaigen to this day has not been proven they wouldn't even have to learn about the dirty, filthy origins of vaccination to decide they're being taken. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fredm1974 Posted November 3, 2020 Share Posted November 3, 2020 17 minutes ago, jesuitsdidit said: Introduction from your PDF Written evidence from Dr Lisa Forsberg*, Dr Isra Black**, Dr Thomas Douglas*, Dr Jonathan Pugh* (COV0220) Compulsory vaccination for Covid-19 and human rights law 5 Introduction and summary We are academics working in the areas of philosophy and law, with specialisations in, inter alia, moral and political philosophy, biomedical ethics, health law, and human rights law. Our submission pertains to compulsory Covid-19 vaccination:1 a requirement on 10 individuals to undergo vaccination as a condition of release from pandemic-related restrictions on liberty, including on movement and association.2 Our evidence is forward-looking. We expect that a Covid-19 vaccine will become available in sufficient quantity to enable population-wide immunisation.3 At that stage, the Government will need to consider the means of delivery, including whether it is 15 necessary to legislate for compulsory vaccination. We consider the human rights law dimensions of compulsory vaccination by reference to the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Convention on Human Rights. As such, our submission primarily addresses a live issue the second question in the Committee’s call for evidence: What will the impact of specific measures taken by Government to address the 20 25 30 Covid-19 pandemic be on human rights in the UK? Our evidence takes the following form: 1. A discussion of the reasons why compulsory vaccination may need to be considered; 2. An overview of relevant legal provisions; 3. An examination of the human rights law compliance of compulsory vaccination. Our analysis under 3 establishes two parity arguments: a. If Covid-19 ‘lockdown’ measures are compatible with human rights law, then it is arguable that compulsory vaccination is too (lockdown parity argument); b. If compulsory medical treatment under mental health law for personal and public protection purposes is compatible with human rights law, then it is arguable that compulsory vaccination is too (mental health parity argument). *University of Oxford; ** University of York. 1We note that there is disagreement about what compulsion means and as to whether different kinds of non-voluntary vaccination schemes are in fact compulsory schemes. This is in part a theoretical disagreement, and in part a practical one to do with the nature of state sanctions that back any scheme. See Emma Cave, ‘Voluntary vaccination: the pandemic effect’ (2017) 37(2) LS 279-304. In this submission, we take a coarse-grained or bird’s eye view of the issue, that is, we will not engage here with the detail of specific policy schema for compulsory vaccination. 2Much of our argument is applicable, mutatis mutandis, to Covid-19 prophylactic treatment. For clarity and brevity, we focus on vaccination. 3The UK Government has purchased 190m doses of three vaccine candidates, either on risk or in principle: Sarah Bosely, ‘UK secures deals for 90m doses of coronavirus vaccine’ The Guardian (20 July 2020) https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/20/uk-deals-doses-coronavirus-vaccine 20/07/20. Our chief conclusion is that, as and when a vaccine becomes available at scale, the Government should give serious consideration to compulsory immunisation as a 35 means of reducing the impacts of Covid-19. There is an arguable case for the compatibility of compulsory vaccination with human rights law. 1. Vaccine hesitancy A Covid-19 vaccine promises to be the best means to mitigate the impacts of the pandemic on individuals and society. Yet sufficient voluntary uptake of a vaccine 40 cannot be guaranteed.4 Voluntary vaccine uptake may be limited by ‘vaccine hesitancy’, which the World Health Organization (WHO) describes as ‘the reluctance or refusal to vaccinate despite the availability of vaccines’.5 Vaccine hesitancy in respect of Covid19 may arise because of the influence of anti-vaccination movements, the uneven demographic distribution of Covid-19 morbidity and mortality risks,6 or the mistaken 45 belief that Covid-19 immunity has already been acquired. Should a Covid-19 vaccine become available at scale, we cannot expect sufficient voluntary uptake. It is necessary for the Government to consider a policy of compulsory vaccination, with appropriate exceptions.7 Such a policy requires an assessment of its impact on human rights Common Law.. No consent. Can’t touch you! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nobby Noboddy Posted November 3, 2020 Share Posted November 3, 2020 8 minutes ago, Mr H said: I hope the same as you. But realistically speaking. The current strategy is to lockdown whenever the R rate goes too high - until a vaccine comes. This means realistically, we will be locked down at least intermittently until then (they're suggesting spring). So that would have meant over 12 months of lock down - with a lot of that in proper lockdown - following a dark winter. I can't see many people resisting a way out after such torment. I am sad to say. The vaccine is nothing but a long planned and deeply invested weapon. Contaigen is a myth. Germ THEORY is bollocks. Vaccination is the ONLY guaranteed way to introduce a toxin or pathogen into a human. Health comes from hygiene, healthy food, clean environment and good company. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted November 3, 2020 Share Posted November 3, 2020 4 minutes ago, Nobby Noboddy said: Right on Doc. Be free or fuck off. If only people knew what a wanker Pasteur was, how germ theory is bollocks and contaigen to this day has not been proven they wouldn't even have to learn about the dirty, filthy origins of vaccination to decide they're being taken. 1 minute ago, fredm1974 said: Common Law.. No consent. Can’t touch you! I DO NOT CONSENT. When they come for you and start asking for your name etc, when they drag you from your house, these are the only words you should speak. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrankVitali Posted November 3, 2020 Share Posted November 3, 2020 (edited) 30 minutes ago, Nobby Noboddy said: I'm sorry, I don't mean to be rude but - 'Is he fuck' would be my favoured reactionary phrase. ANYONE who is allowed a prominent voice is a (knowing or unknowing) shill. He looks well fed off his establishment past (and present?) so why the fuck would I listen to him? Looks like a paedo to me too. lol.. Well then.. What do I say to that? Looks like a paedo, so therefore that makes him a paedo. *e2a: Yeah he does look a bit like Saville. Personally from that video, he is clearly stating the Coronavirus Act and associated laws passed earlier this year are completely unlawful. I watched most of that conference and hes taking our side. I also posted a Farage video and got flamed a bit. Fuck me, who would you rather have, Starmer or Johnson? Given the choices, at least Farage is anti-lockdown. "oh no Farage is a wanker." I know, i know.. Left or right, all parties piss in the same pot but come on.. I feel there's a few 'Lords' out there that are alright. They're not all bad eggs. lol. If its an argument you want. Maybe we should ask @Comedy Time's opinion on the matter Edited November 3, 2020 by FrankVitali Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.