Coronavirus Mega-Thread.

[DarianF]

3 minutes ago, AdvaitaV said:

Fantastic find. Deserves to be disseminated widely.

 

I found the HTML version: https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/9253/html/

[Nobby Noboddy]

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.

[FrankVitali]

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?

 

[Doc]

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

[FrankVitali]

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..

[Ziggy Sawdust]

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

[jesuitsdidit]

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

 

 

[FrankVitali]

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.

 

 

[Doc]

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.

[Mr H]

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.

[Nobby Noboddy]

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.

 

 

[Nobby Noboddy]

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.

[fredm1974]

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! 
 

[Nobby Noboddy]

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.

 

[Doc]

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.

[FrankVitali]

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

[Golden Retriever]

 

[Nobby Noboddy]

15 minutes ago, FrankVitali said:

 

 

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  

Yeah, I'm open to slander for that paedo prod but it was just a joke.

 

These people will have to prove themselves before too long.

 

I don't care for an argument especially with staffers like CT, is that you?

 

And do you really think there are any lords who are alright, who for example?

 

 

[Bombadil]

Have been reading a lot about common law and consent. I think given the situation that has been created by the government etc to deal with this bullshit they will probably use mental health issues as an excuse to override informed consent, or the refusal to give consent.

This is just a small part of common law but very telling:

 

CONSENT TO TREATMENT (PART IV) INTRODuCTION AND PRINCIPlES Introduction
Part IV of the Order is concerned with the treatment of people who experience a mental disorder, both with and without their consent. It describes the procedures and safeguards in relation to specific treatments for mental disorder.
under existing common law within this jurisdiction, all mentally competent adults have an absolute right to give or withhold consent to any medical treatment. Consent to a particular form of treatment allows that treatment to be given lawfully. To give treatment without informed and continuing consent may constitute assault and trespass against the person.
The common law allows treatment to be given without consent if a person is considered to lack the capacity to consent to it. In these circumstances, treatment can be given if it is deemed to be in the person’s best interests

 

Think the above rule might just wave ciao ciao to refusal of consent.

The dice are always loaded in the system and you ain’t allowed at the craps table!

[FrankVitali]

23 minutes ago, Nobby Noboddy said:

Yeah, I'm open to slander for that paedo prod but it was just a joke.

 

These people will have to prove themselves before too long.

 

I don't care for an argument especially with staffers like CT, is that you?

 

And do you really think there are any lords who are alright, who for example?

 

 

 

 

No CT is not me.  I just know CT likes an argument lol

 

 

 

[fredm1974]

1 hour ago, Doc said:

 

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.

Common Law is only law in this country, any law passed in parliament is admiralty law and require consent of people, if we don’t consent then it’s not law and cannot be force on us.  They can’t force you to have vaccine under any law without your consent.

 

look at video‘s of shops etc using Common Law/Magna Carta to tell authorities to fuck off when they turn up to fine and close them down..  They can’t do thing to them..

Edited November 3, 2020 by fredm1974

[The Illuminator]

2 hours ago, AdvaitaV said:

Hi,

 

I'm New to the forums here but not the site and certainly not to Mr. Icke who I have been following since the beginning.

 

If I don't know how things work... patience please ;-)

 

I just signed up to share the following two items from the MSM.... Singapore today, here tomorrow.

 

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-54792187

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-54797917

 

Copy and paste the links. I clearly don't know how this works. Maybe someone can make them clickable?

 

Out of likes sorry. Welcome.

 

Fuck the bbc mate hahaha 

[Golden Retriever]

Judge says care home residents in England are legally allowed visitors

Remark challenges policy that in effect bans visits in areas of high Covid-19 infection

 

"A senior judge has said friends and family can legally visit their loved ones in care homes, in an apparent challenge to recent government policy that has in effect banned routine visits in areas of high Covid-19 infection.

Mr Justice Hayden, vice-president of the court of protection which makes decisions for people who lack mental capacity, said courts are concerned about the impact on elderly people of lockdowns. He has circulated a memo that sets out his analysis that regulations do “permit contact with relatives” and friends and visits are “lawful”.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/nov/03/judge-says-care-home-residents-in-england-are-legally-allowed-visitors?fbclid=IwAR1-SgTkwCxfABe-lwtWLAbxEw0dySFYUfakfK4XyIv95fxEddE8hBYfSrk

[Mr H]

29 minutes ago, Golden Retriever said:

Judge says care home residents in England are legally allowed visitors

Remark challenges policy that in effect bans visits in areas of high Covid-19 infection

 

"A senior judge has said friends and family can legally visit their loved ones in care homes, in an apparent challenge to recent government policy that has in effect banned routine visits in areas of high Covid-19 infection.

Mr Justice Hayden, vice-president of the court of protection which makes decisions for people who lack mental capacity, said courts are concerned about the impact on elderly people of lockdowns. He has circulated a memo that sets out his analysis that regulations do “permit contact with relatives” and friends and visits are “lawful”.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/nov/03/judge-says-care-home-residents-in-england-are-legally-allowed-visitors?fbclid=IwAR1-SgTkwCxfABe-lwtWLAbxEw0dySFYUfakfK4XyIv95fxEddE8hBYfSrk

 

Doesn't really matter what is legal and what is not anymore.

 

Law has been thrown out the window with new laws are being made up on the fly without consent.

 

Flu, sorry corona virus, trumps ALL previously held laws! That IS the law NOW!

[TheAwakened]

2 hours ago, greatdayforfreedom said:

 

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. 

My god this is so true.

 

Do you think some people can't wait to be enslaved? 

 

Some people seem to enjoy the fear so much. Its like they're bathing in it.