Disclaimer: Please note that the content on this site is for informational and entertainment purposes only and should not be taken as anything else such as qualified professional advice. Anyone on this site seeking any advice should consult a qualified professional. This site's owner/creators cannot vouch for the veracity of the content on this site and are not liable for any risks or issues associated with using or acting upon the information on this site.
28 Sep 2021 11:09:11
Morning Ed033,
I was trying to search for a post a few months ago where you detailed the 2 Supreme Court cases regarding self certifying exemptions and what is required in order for informed consent to be completed. Could you repost this for me please? Thanks.
{Ed033's Note - Vaccines in UK are not mandatory. There is an exemption on evidence of medical reasons and the Supreme Court recognises at common law that denial of free and informed consent is a self certified medical reason. See Montgomery v Lanarkshire [2015] UKSC 11
uksc-2013-0136 judgment
In R Wilkinson v Broadmoor : [2001] EWCA Civ 1545, Lady Justice Hale, Supreme Court President, confirmed that forced medical procedure without informed consent "may be sued in the ordinary way for the (common law) tort of battery".
bailii.org
In the judgement it was held that acting under statutory authority provides no defence, therefore the Employer will be guilty of coercion on the threat of battery with regards to unlawful dismissal if express evidence of denial of informed consent are unlawfully rejected.
This will result in a breach of contract and also a Tort that can be sued. The above is why mask "mandate" exemptions were self certified. It is unlawful for Doctors to interfere with the process of free and informed consent. Informed consent is defined in Montgomery as follows:
1. That the patient is given sufficient information – to allow individuals to make choices that will affect their health and well being on proper information.
2. Sufficient information means informing the patient of the availability of other treatments (and forms of testing).
3. That the patient is informed of the material risks of taking the medical intervention and the material risks of declining it.
If consent is given but the Patient subsequently proves that information provided at the time breached the above common law test of informed consent, the Tort of battery is committed and the medication is unlawful.
The High Court has found children incapable of providing Gillick Competency for experimental medicines with unknown long term effects. Schools therefore risk being sued for battery if ignoring Parental preferences. See Bell v Tavistock [2020] EWHC 3274
Bell-v-Tavistock Judgment
These principles are discussed without reference to case law on this important NHS page on Free and Informed Consent and Gillick Competency.
NHS Consent to treatment
The fundamental common law right to free and informed consent, based on the ancient Tort of battery (trespass to the person), are valid in all 16 Commonwealth Realms and both the Republic of Ireland and USA, where English common law is retained as a body of law.
In Ireland, evidence that English common law rights are retained can be found in the Statute Revision Act (2007) which retained Magna Carta and most of the English Bill of Rights (1688) and much, much more.
irishstatutebook.ie
In USA, English common law rights are retained by the 9th Amendment of the Constitution "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.", hence why US courts refer to them.
constitution.congress.gov
uksc-2013-0136 judgment
In R Wilkinson v Broadmoor : [2001] EWCA Civ 1545, Lady Justice Hale, Supreme Court President, confirmed that forced medical procedure without informed consent "may be sued in the ordinary way for the (common law) tort of battery".
bailii.org
In the judgement it was held that acting under statutory authority provides no defence, therefore the Employer will be guilty of coercion on the threat of battery with regards to unlawful dismissal if express evidence of denial of informed consent are unlawfully rejected.
This will result in a breach of contract and also a Tort that can be sued. The above is why mask "mandate" exemptions were self certified. It is unlawful for Doctors to interfere with the process of free and informed consent. Informed consent is defined in Montgomery as follows:
1. That the patient is given sufficient information – to allow individuals to make choices that will affect their health and well being on proper information.
2. Sufficient information means informing the patient of the availability of other treatments (and forms of testing).
3. That the patient is informed of the material risks of taking the medical intervention and the material risks of declining it.
If consent is given but the Patient subsequently proves that information provided at the time breached the above common law test of informed consent, the Tort of battery is committed and the medication is unlawful.
The High Court has found children incapable of providing Gillick Competency for experimental medicines with unknown long term effects. Schools therefore risk being sued for battery if ignoring Parental preferences. See Bell v Tavistock [2020] EWHC 3274
Bell-v-Tavistock Judgment
These principles are discussed without reference to case law on this important NHS page on Free and Informed Consent and Gillick Competency.
NHS Consent to treatment
The fundamental common law right to free and informed consent, based on the ancient Tort of battery (trespass to the person), are valid in all 16 Commonwealth Realms and both the Republic of Ireland and USA, where English common law is retained as a body of law.
In Ireland, evidence that English common law rights are retained can be found in the Statute Revision Act (2007) which retained Magna Carta and most of the English Bill of Rights (1688) and much, much more.
irishstatutebook.ie
In USA, English common law rights are retained by the 9th Amendment of the Constitution "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.", hence why US courts refer to them.
constitution.congress.gov
30 Sep 2021 10:34:06
That's the one Ed033, thanks. The search facility is functional again now.
I see the Government are calling for public opinion and evidence for 'Plan B' and the introduction of vax passports
The latest PHE report shows that the rate of CV per 100,000 people is higher in the double jabbed than all other vax statuses combined (page 17 graph A)
The data shows that requiring proof of vax, but NOT a negative test result (especially for the hundreds of thousands attending PL matches) will make the vaccinated the super-spreaders.
That's the one Ed033, thanks. The search facility is functional again now.
I see the Government are calling for public opinion and evidence for 'Plan B' and the introduction of vax passports
The latest PHE report shows that the rate of CV per 100,000 people is higher in the double jabbed than all other vax statuses combined (page 17 graph A)
The data shows that requiring proof of vax, but NOT a negative test result (especially for the hundreds of thousands attending PL matches) will make the vaccinated the super-spreaders.
{Ed033's Note - Since the implementation of the jabs, is C.V. now mostly adverse reactions to the experimental jabs?
i guess it all comes down to whatever the 'Stakeholders' want as government now does whatever the 'Stakeholders' want?
i guess it all comes down to whatever the 'Stakeholders' want as government now does whatever the 'Stakeholders' want?
Agree · 0 · Disagree · 0
30 Sep 2021 13:32:32
Or, the jabs are the Delta variant. There was a spike in cases in most nations globally shortly after the rollout of these jabs.
Or, the jabs are the Delta variant. There was a spike in cases in most nations globally shortly after the rollout of these jabs.
{Ed033's Note - i sort of meant the jabs are the Delta variant
Agree · 0 · Disagree · 0
