Fit-For-Purpose[NAME]
Address:[ADDRESS]NOTICE-OF-LIABILITY-FOR-HARM-AND-DEATH
SILENCE-IS-ACQUIESCENCE,-AGREEMENT-AND-DISHONOUR
Time Sensitive Document
Estoppel Conditions Apply Upon Default
NOTICE-TO-PRINCIPAL-IS-NOTICE-TO-AGENT; NOTICE-TO-AGENT-IS-NOTICE-TOPRINCIPAL
Applicable to All Successors and AssignsTo:
1. [name eg Jane Brown ] acting as [job title eg HEAD TEACHER ] of the [SCHOOL NAME
and ADDRESS, UNITED KINGDOM] as the living man/woman
Copy to whom it may concern
2. [name] acting as [job title] of [organisation eg school or DEPARTMENT-OFHEALTH/EDUCATION etc] as the living man/woman
3. [OTHER? - ADD IN ANY OTHERS HERE]
Hereinafter: Respondents and collectively “you” or “your”.
I, [NAME], as the Claimant hereinafter “I” or “my”
Purpose of this Notice of Liability
This legal and lawful Notice of Liability for Harm and/or Death intends to enlighten andinform you of the law and evidence on which you will be held liable for any harm and or
suffering and or disability and or death that arises from the implementation by you of
Non-Pharmaceutical and Pharmaceutical measures on your school premises. It is notintended to cause you distress or harm.
It also intends to protect you from attracting civil and criminal liability whether domestic orinternational and whether in existing court or one to be convened under Natural Law principles
in relation to your action(s) and or your omission(s) to act to prevent harm in relation to thealleged SARS-CoV-2 pandemic and the measures that have been/are being taken within the
United Kingdom and world-wide and in your school to allegedly control its spread and effectincluding, but not limited to, the administration and or implementation of policies on wearing
face-mask medical devices, requiring individuals to be tested using COVID-19 testingequipment/medical devices such as the RT-PCR and lateral flow tests and the administration of
the experimental COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2 mRNA gene therapies/injections/medical
devices/vaccines and or viral vector injections/vaccines.
Furthermore, you may be held personally, privately, civilly and or criminally liable forparticipating in unlawful, illegal and or criminal activity including assault, battery, grievous
bodily harm and or murder and or for supporting crimes against humanity, genocide, andor bio-warfare and or failing to prevent acts so defined, including but not limited to acts thatare purposely committed as part of a widespread or systematic policy, directed against living
men and women including, but not limited to new and expectant mothers, breast feeding
women, babies, offspring, unborn offspring and young adults committed in furtherance ofstate/government/school policy.
This Notice of Liability may be relied upon and used as evidence in court proceedings.
The Rule of Law
WHEREAS, you have a lawful, legal, moral, ethical and constitutional DUTY to uphold theRule of Law.; and"First Do No Harm" - "Primum Non Nocere" - a fundamental duty of medical ethics andlaw.
WHEREAS, the State, the Government and Government actors, public authorities, NHS
Trusts and other state actors such as Schools and Universities as well as private corporations
and an individual's primary common law DUTY is to "FIRST, Do No Harm" - Primum Non
Nocere. It is a fundamental principle of medical ethics and a maxim of common law, domestic
and international laws and God's laws that binds you. "Do No Harm" means that you must not
act to cause harm, nor must you omit to act to prevent harm from happening; andWHEREAS, Omitting to act to prevent harm is as culpable as acting to cause harm. From
Black's law dictionary :"What is OMISSION?
Failure to complete a duty or task, usually as a result of apathy,
complacency or neglect."https://thelawdictionary.org/omission/#:~:text=Failure%20to%20complete%20a%20duty,of%
20apathy%2C%20complacency%20or%20neglect.; andThe Rule of Law - Human Civil, Spiritual and other Rights and Liberties
We are each Sovereign Human Beings
WHEREAS, it is a fundamental principle of the Rule of Law that human beings are born
free and equal in dignity and rights. We are each and every one of us Sovereign humanbeings with inalienable, fundamental, natural Human Civil, Spiritual and other Rights
and Liberties which cannot be derogated from. (see below).; andWe are each Equal under the Rule of Law and No One is above the Law
WHEREAS, a core principle of the Rule of Law is equality i.e. We are all equal in the eyesof God and are equal under God's laws. We are all equal under the Rule of Law and no
one is above the law, including the Crown - "Rex Debet Esse Sub Lege, Quia Lex Facit
Regem" - "The king should be subject to the law for the law makes the king."
https://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/Term/RexDebetEsseSubLegeQuiaLexFacitRegem; andNon-derogable rights
WHEREAS, inalienable, fundamental, natural Human Civil, Spiritual and other Rights andLiberties are enshrined in the Rule of Law and binding on the Crown and its Successors
in perpetuity and cannot be derogated from - even in a public health emergency
threatening the life of the nation or in warfare - other than in lawful acts of war - (see thefollowing current law including, but not limited to: the Charter of Liberties (1100), the Magna
Carta (1297), the Confirmation of the Charters (1297), the Confirmation of the Charters andStatutes (1416), Confirmation of Liberties (1423), the Liberty of the Subject Act (1354), theHabeus Corpus Act (1679), the Bill of Rights/Act (1688), the Human Rights Act (1998), theEquality Act (2010), the Health & Safety at Work Act (1974) the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights (1948), the European Convention on Human Rights (1950), the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966),and paragraph 58 of the Siracusa Principles, theInternational Covenant on Cultural, Social and Economic Rights (1966), the Oviedo
Convention (1997), the International Covenant on Human Rights and Bioethics (2005), theRome Statute of the International Criminal Court, the International Criminal Court Act (2001),
the Offences Against the Person Act (1861), the war Conventions.
There are other limits placed on the claimed right to derogate from these fundamental
inalienable natural human rights in various legal instruments (see below)).
https://www.icj.org/wp-content/uploads/1984/07/Siracusa-principles-ICCPR-legalsubmission-1985-eng.pdf; andThe Charter of Liberties (1100) - Liberties granted by the Crown, binding the Crown and
the Crown's Heirs "in perpetuity" i.e. for ever.
WHEREAS, the Charter of Liberties (1100) was issued by King Henry I on his ascension to
the throne of England, at London on his Coronation. Henry I swore a Coronation Oath to We
the People at his Coronation to uphold the law (including, therefore, the Charter of Liberties(1100). The fact of its existence and the wording thereof of the Charter of Liberties (1100) was
confirmed by King Edward I in paragraph 1 of the Great Charter of the Liberties of England,and of the Liberties of the Forest (1297) CHAPTER 9 25 Edw 1 cc 1 9 29.- (short title: Magna
Carta (1297) which states that King Edward I had "seen the Great Charter of the Lord Henry
sometimes King of England" of the "Liberties of England" as follows:"EDWARD by the Grace of God King of England, Lord of Ireland, and Dukeof
Guyan, [to all Archbishops, Bishops, &c.] We have seen the
Great Charter of the Lord
Henry [1100] sometimes King of England, our Father, of the Liberties of England in thesewords:..."

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Edw1cc1929/25/9/paragraph/p1;
WHEREAS, the wording of the Charter of Liberties (1100) is cited in paragraph 2 of the
Magna Carta (1297), which enshrines the Charter of Liberties (1100) into Statute law andremains current. The Charter enshrines the binding Covenant made by King Henry I (andhis heirs and successors i.e. the Royal line - the Crown) to We the People to "give andgrant" to "all Freemen of this our Realm" "these Liberties" to be "kept in our Kingdomof England" "for ever" i.e. in perpetuity. The Covenant was made "unto the honour of
Almighty God" and "for the salvation of our souls" and "the souls of our Progenitors andSuccessors" i.e. the Royal line. The wording of the Charter of Liberties (1100) is as follows:"HENRY by the Grace of God King of England, Lord of
Ireland,Duke of Normandy and Guyan, and Earl of Anjou, to all
Archbishops,
Bishops,Abbots, Priors, Earls, Barons, Sheriffs,
Provosts, Officers, and to all Bailiffs, andother our faithful
Subjects, which shall see this present Charter,
Greeting:
Know Ye, that We, unto the honour of Almighty God, and forthesalvation of [our souls and] the souls of our Progenitors
and Successors [Kings ofEngland,] to the advancement ofHoly Church and amendment of our Realm, of
our meerand free will, have given and granted to all Archbishops,
Bishops, Abbots, Priors, Earls, Barons, and to all [Freemen]ofthis our Realm, these Liberties following, to be kept in
our Kingdom of Englandfor ever."(emphasis added)
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Edw1cc1929/25/9/paragraph/p2; andWHEREAS, in the Charter of Liberties (1100), King Henry I restores the law of King
Edward, subject to "amendments made to it by my father with the advice of his barons" andswears to "take away all the bad customs by which the kingdom of England was unjustly
oppressed", and imposes a "strict peace" and commands that the strict peace be"maintained henceforth":"Know that ... I, through fear of God and the love which I have toward you
and "because the kingdom had been oppressed by unjust exactions""..I take away all the bad customs by which the kingdom of Englandunjustly oppressed"

all"

was

"12. I impose a strict peace upon my whole kingdom and commandthat it be maintained henceforth."
13.

I restore to you the law of King Edward with thoseamendments introduced into it by my father with the advice ofhis barons."; andhttps://archive.org/stream/pdfyuS6dgJSBYfcMp3x_/The%20Charter%20Of%20Liberties%20Of%20King%20Henry%20I%
20%281100%29_djvu.txt; andhttps://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Edw1cc1929/25/9/paragraph/p1, and
The Carta Libertatum (1215) - (also known as the Magna Carta (1215))
WHEREAS, the “Carta Libertatum” (1215) or “The Charter of Liberties” (also known as "theMagna Carta (1215)") , was a Charter of Liberties made between King John I and the Baronsof England on behalf of We the People, signed by King John I at Runnymede, England on 15th
June 1215. The Carta Libertatum (1215) set out the laws which the king and everyone else
had to follow. Chapter 29, reads:“NO free man shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his
Freehold,or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed;
nor will We not pass upon him, nor [condemn him,] but by lawful
judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the Land.
We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either
Right.”(emphasis added)

Justice or(translated from the original Latin)
https://www.fedcourt.gov.au/digital-law-library/judges-speeches/justice-rares/rares-j20151009; andWHEREAS, the Carta Libertatum (1215) was annulled by the Pope shortly after it was signed
but was reissued in (1216), (1217) by the King's regent and reissued in (1225) under the King's
own Great Seal, thereby confirming the King's freely given consent to the Charter. The Magna
Carta (1297) was enshrined in Statute law - including chapter 29 from the Carta
Libertatum (1215) and remains current Statute law.; andHabeus Corpus Act (1679)
WHEREAS, chapter 29 of the Magna Carta (1215) is enshrined further in current UK Statutelaw in the Habeus Corpus Act 1679 CHAPTER 2 31 Cha 2 which binds the crown to obeying
the law and provided further security for the "Liberty of the Subject", The introductory text
states that it is:"An Act for the better securing the Liberty of the Subject and for
Imprisonments beyond the Seas."

Preventionof

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Cha2/31/2/contents; andThe Magna Carta (1217)
WHEREAS, in the speech of Justice Stephen Rares of the Australian Judiciary "Why Magna
Carta Still Matters", from the Judicial Conference of Australia Colloquium, Adelaide, 9October 2015, Justice Rares states that the story of the Magna Carta is "beautifully told" by theformer Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, Lord Igor Judge and Anthony Arlidge QC intheir book published in 2014 - "Magna Carta Uncovered". (2014) Hart Publishing, Oxford andPortland. This source cites the fact that three subsequent charters were issued following the
Magna Carter of 1215 as follows:"[5] Pope Innocent III issued a papal bull, as King John always
intended would happen, annulling Magna Carta less than 10
weeks after it had been granted on 15 June 1215.
[6]
In essence, much, but not all of the 1215 Charter was used as
the foundation for three subsequent charters issued in the nine
years after King John’s unlamented death from dysentery in
October 1216."
https://www.fedcourt.gov.au/digital-law-library/judges-speeches/justice-rares/rares-j20151009; andMagna Carta (1216)
WHEREAS, King John I's son, Henry III ascended to the throne as an infant on his father's
death in October 2016. The Earl of Pembroke, William Marshal, was appointed regent pending
Henry III's Coronation. Marshal and the Papal legate reissued an amended Magna Carta in
November 2016.
https://www.fedcourt.gov.au/digital-law-library/judges-speeches/justice-rares/rares-j20151009 - para [7] ; andMagna Carta (1217) and the Charter of the Forests (1217)
WHEREAS, the regent and papal legate sealed two charters issued under the name of theinfant king Henry III - the Magna Carta (1217) and the Charter of the Forests (1217). The
historical significance of the 1217 charters is that, unlike those of the two previous years, thesewere issued without the king, or his regent, being under duress or threat. They, therefore, gave
the King’s promises and concessions freely
https://www.fedcourt.gov.au/digital-law-library/judges-speeches/justice-rares/rares-j20151009 - para [9] and [10]; andThe Magna Carta (1225)
WHEREAS, upon becoming an adult in February 1225, King Henry III reissued the Magna
Carta (1225) under his seal - the Great Seal of Henry III - binding himself and his heirs "inperpetuity". The authentication with the Great Seal of Henry III removed, once and for all, anysuggestion that the Magna Carta's liberties were the product of coercion. In exchange, thePeople agreed to a "tax on moveables" to fund the King's campaign to defend his lands in
Gascony, France. The Magna Carta (1225) is a legally binding contract between the Crown
and We the People, with financial consideration paid by We the People for the benefit of
the Rights and Liberties granted under the contract. This legal position is confirmed in
the Magna Carta (1297) which is current statute law (see below).
https://www.fedcourt.gov.au/digital-law-library/judges-speeches/justice-rares/rares-j-

20151009 - paragraph [10]; andhttps://www.bl.uk/collection-items/magna-carta-1225; andWHEREAS, the UK Government states that the "Magna Carta set out the laws which theking and everyone else had to follow" and that "Copies of Magna Carta were sent out to beread out in each county of England so that everyone knew of its existence."https://www.parliament.uk/about/livingheritage/evolutionofparliament/originsofparliament/birthofparliament/overview/magnacarta/
magnacartaclauses/; andWHEREAS, chapter 1 of "The Great Charter of the Liberties of England” - Magna Carta (1225) provided that the King had:“granted to all free-men of our kingdom … for ever, all the liberties
out below …”.

written

This Covenant was incorporated into chapter 1 with the King’s Covenant that the Church of
England should be free and “shall have all her whole Rights and Liberties inviolable.”https://www.fedcourt.gov.au/digital-law-library/judges-speeches/justice-rares/rares-j20151009 ; andWHEREAS, under the Magna Carta (1225), all merchants, unless publicly prohibited
beforehand, could safely and securely enter, leave and travel through England by land andwater to buy and sell, without any unjust exactions, except in time of war- an early recognitionof the importance of, relatively, free trade and movement.
https://www.fedcourt.gov.au/digital-law-library/judges-speeches/justice-rares/rares-j20151009 ; andWHEREAS, chapter 9 of the Magna Carta (1225) granted, first, the City of London all its
old liberties and customs and, secondly, gave the same to all of the cities, boroughs, towns
and the Barons of the Five [or Cinque] Ports. This is current law, as enshrined in current
Statute law under section IX of the Magna Carta (1297) as follows:"IX

Liberties of London, &c.

THE City of London shall have all the old Liberties and Customs [which it hath beenused to have]. Moreover We will and grant, that all other Cities, Boroughs, Towns, and theBarons of the Five Ports, and allother Ports, shall have all their Liberties and free
Customs."(emphasis added)
https://www.fedcourt.gov.au/digital-law-library/judges-speeches/justice-rares/rares-j20151009 -para [17]https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Edw1cc1929/25/9/section/IX; andWHEREAS, the concluding saving clause of the Magna Carta (1225) provided that:

“[A]nd if anything be procured by any person contrary to the premises, it shallbe had of no force or effect”.
Thus, the King himself ensured, that by his own promise he would obey the law. This clausealso provides that no law or action taken to derogate from the provisions of the Magna
Carta (1225) would be legal and would have no legal effect.
https://www.fedcourt.gov.au/digital-law-library/judges-speeches/justice-rares/rares-j20151009 - para [22] ; andThe Magna Carta (1297) - THE GREAT CHARTER OF THE LIBERTIES OF
ENGLAND, AND OF THE LIBERTIES OF THE FOREST
The Magna Carta (1297) is a legally binding contract between the Crown and We thePeople, with financial consideration paid by We the People of a "fifteenth part of theirmoveables" for the legally enforceable benefit of the Rights and Liberties granted under
the contract.
The Magna Carta (1297) was granted "for ever" ie in perpetuity, thereby binding the
Crown and its Heirs and Successors for ever.
It remains current Statute law.
WHEREAS, after 1225, monarchs regularly confirmed the Magna Carta, and Edward I
confirmed the Magna Carta again in 1297 in the Confirmation of the Charters (1297) - inexchange for another tax on moveables provided by the People, thereby creating a legallybinding contract "for ever" i.e. in perpetuity. The Magna Carta (1297) CHAPTER 9 25
Edw 1 cc 1 9 29 was entered on to England's statute roll book, where it remains as current
Statute law.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Edw1cc1929/25/9/contents
https://www.fedcourt.gov.au/digital-law-library/judges-speeches/justice-rares/rares-j20151009 - para [22]https://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/search/?q=Magna%20Carta%20uncovered; andWHEREAS, King Edward I at Westminster confirmed and granted the Charter of Liberties i.e.
the "free Liberties" and "free Custom" which "they have had in time passed" to "all Persons"entitled "THE GREAT CHARTER OF THE LIBERTIES OF ENGLAND, AND OF THE
LIBERTIES OF THE FOREST" on the twenty-eighth day of March in the twenty-eighthyear of his Reign - the "Magna Carta (1297)". It is current UK Statute law.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Edw1cc1929/25/9/contents; andWHEREAS, paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Magna Carta (1297) cite the Charter of Liberties (1100)
inter alia:"Know Ye, that We, unto the honour of Almighty God, and forthesalvation of [our souls and] the souls of our Progenitors
and Successors [Kings ofEngland,] to the advancement ofHoly Church and amendment of our Realm, of

our meer and free will,
have given and granted to all Archbishops,
Bishops,Abbots, Priors,
Earls, Barons, and to all [Freemen] of this our Realm, these
Liberties
following, to be kept in our Kingdom of England for ever."(emphasis added)
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Edw1cc1929/25/9/paragraph/p1,
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Edw1cc1929/25/9/paragraph/p2; and
WHEREAS, section 1 of the Magna Carta (1297) states that King Edward I has "granted andgiven" to "all the Freemen of our Realm" thereby binding him and his heirs "for ever" i.e.
in perpetuity these "Liberties" "for ever" - i.e. in perpetuity - as cited:
I

Confirmation of Liberties.

FIRST, We have granted to God, and by this our present
Charter have confirmed, for Us and our Heirs for ever, that
the Church of England shall be free, and shall have all her
whole Rights and Liberties inviolable.
We have granted also, and given to all the Freemen of ourRealm, for Us and our Heirs for ever, these Liberties underwritten, to have and to hold to them and their Heirs, of Us
and our Heirs for ever.
(emphasis added)
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Edw1cc1929/25/9/section/I; andWHEREAS, section 29 of the Magna Carta (1297) states:" XXIX

Imprisonment, &c. contrary to Law. Administration of
Justice.

NO Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold,or
Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled,or any other wise destroyed;
nor will We not pass upon him, nor [condemn him,] but by lawful judgment of his
Peers, or by the Law of the Land. We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any
man either Justice or Right."(emphasis added)
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Edw1cc1929/25/9/section/XXIX; andGeneral Saving provisions of the Magna Carta (1297) - no right for the Crown or any
person to derogate from a Person's "free Liberties" and "free Customs" which are"holden within this Realm".
- any such derogation to be null and void and of no effect
WHEREAS, the following "General Saving" provisions and the "Observance of these
Liberties" remain as current UK Statute law. King Edward I "reserved to" "all Persons" their"free Liberties" and "free Customs" which the Crown had granted to be "holden within this
our Realm". Edward I promised that he and his heirs will "observe the same against all
Persons, in like wise." i.e. all persons are equal under the law. " In return, Edward I received
consideration from the people a "Fifteenth Part of all their Moveables" thereby forming alegally binding contract. These provisions are found under the "wrapper" provisions of the
Magna Carta (1297) inter alia:"General Saving. Observance of these Liberties. Subsidy, in respect
Charter and Charter of the Forest.

of

this

Reserving to all Archbishops, Bishops, Abbots, Priors, Templars, Hospitallers, Earls,
Barons, and all Persons, as well Spiritual as Temporal, all their [free Liberties] and free
Customs, which they
have had in time passed.
And all these Customs and Liberties aforesaid, which We have granted to beholden within this our Realm, [as much as appertaineth to Us and our Heirs, we shallobserve; and] all Men of this our Realm, as well Spiritual as Temporal, [as much as inthem is, shall observe
the same against all Persons, in like wise.]And for this our Gift and Grant of these Liberties, and of other contained in ourCharter of Liberties of our Forest, theArchbishops, Bishops, Abbots, Priors, Earls,
Barons, Knights, Freeholders, and other
our Subjects, have given unto Us the FifteenthPart of all their
Moveables.
And We have granted unto them on the other part, that neither We
nor
our
Heirs shall procure or do any thing whereby the Liberties
in this Charter contained
shall be infringed or broken.
And if any thing be procured by any person contrary to theshall be had of no force nor effect.".....

premises,it

We, Ratifying and approving these Gifts and Grants aforesaid, confirm
andmake strong all the same for Us and our Heirs perpetually, and by the Tenor of thesePresents do renew thesame:Willing and granting for Us and our Heirs, that [this Charter and]all
andsingular his Articles for ever shall be steadfastly, firmly, and inviolably observed;[and if] any Article in the same Charter contained yet hitherto
peradventure hath
not been kept [We will and by authority royalcommand from henceforth firmly they
be observed].
In Witness whereof We have caused these our Letters Patents to

be made.

[Edward our son at Westminster, the twenty-eighth day of March intwenty-eighth year of our Reign.]"(emphasis added)thehttps://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Edw1cc1929/25/9/section/wrapper1; andConfirmation of the Charters (1297)
WHEREAS, King Edward confirmed the Charter of Liberties in the Confirmation of theCharters Act (1297) CHAPTER 6 25 Edw 1 cc 1 6. It is current Statute law. Section 1 states:"I

Confirmation of the Charters. Publication thereof.

EDWARD, by the Grace of God, King of England, Lord of Ireland, and Dukeof
Guyan, To All those that these present Letters shall hear or see, Greeting. Know Ye that We,
to the honour of God, and of Holy Church, and to the Profit of our Realm, have granted for
us and our Heirs, that the Charter of Liberties, . . . which were made by
CommonAssent of all the Realm, in the time of King Henry ourFather, shall be kept in every
point without breach.
And We will that . . . our Justices, Sheriffs, Mayors, and other Ministers, which
under Us have the Laws of our Land to guide, [shall allow the said Charters pleaded
before them in Judgment inall their
points;] that is to wit, the Great
Charter as theCommon Law, . . . "https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Edw1cc16/25/6/section/I; andThe Statute the Fifth (1351)
WHEREAS, the Statute of the Fifth was passed by King Edward III at London on 10th October
1351. Section IV of the Statute the Fifth (1351) is current UK Statute law. It states:"IV
None shall be taken upon Suggestion without lawful
nor disfranchised, but by Course of Law.

Presentment;"Whereas it is contained in the Great Charter of the Franchises of England,[theMagna Carta (1297)] that none shall be imprisoned
nor put out of his Freehold, norof his Franchises nor free Custom, unless it be by the Law of the Land;
It is accorded assented, and stablished, That from henceforth none shall be taken by
Petition or Suggestion made to our Lord the King, or
to his Council, unless it be by
Indictment or Presentment of good andlawful People of the same neighbourhood wheresuch Deeds be done, in due Manner, or by Process made by Writ original at the Common
Law; nor that none be out of his Franchises, nor of his Freeholds, unless he be duly
brought into answer, and forejudged of the same by the
Course of the Law;
and if any thing be done against the same, it shall be redresseed andholden fornone."(emphasis added)
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Edw3Stat5/25/4/section/IV; andWHEREAS, section VI of the Confirmation of the Charters Act (1297) is current Statute law
and states:

"VINo Aids or Prises shall be taken but by Consent of the Realm.

MOREOVER we have granted for Us and our Heirs as well to Archbishops,
Bishops, Abbots, Priors, and other Folk of Holy Church, as also to Earls, Barons, and to all
the Communalty of the Land, that for no business from henceforth we shall take suchmanner of Aids,
Tasks, nor Prises, but by the common assent of the Realm, and forthe common profit thereof, saving the ancient Aids and Prises due
andaccustomed."https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Edw1cc16/25/6/section/VI; andWHEREAS, section XI of the Confirmation of the Charters Act (1297) is current Statute law
and states:"X1 And Be it Remembered this same Charter, in the same
Terms, word for word, was sealed in Flanders under theKing’s Great Seal, that is to say, at Ghent the fifth day of
Novemberin the twenty-fifth year of the Reign of our aforesaid
Lord the King, and sent
into England."https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Edw1cc16/25/6/section/wrapper1; andThe Liberty of Subject Act (1354)
WHEREAS, the Liberty of Subject Act (1354) 28 Edw III c 3 was passed in the reign of King
Edward III and is current Statute law. Section III provides that:"III None shall be condemned without due Process of Law.
"no Man of what Estate or Condition that he be, shall be put out ofLand orTenement, nor taken, nor imprisoned, nor disinherited, nor put to Death, without beingbrought in Answer by due Process of
the Law."(emphasis added)
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Edw3/28/3
https://www.fedcourt.gov.au/digital-law-library/judges-speeches/justice-rares/rares-j20151009#_ftn4- para [25] ; andConfirmation of the Charters and Statutes (1416)
WHEREAS, Confirmation of the Charters and Statutes (1416) 1416 CHAPTER 1 4 Hen 5
Stat 2 confirms that the "Great Charter" and "all other Statutes and Ordinances made in his
Time" and "in the Times of his noble Progenitors Kings of England" and "not repealed" "shallbe firmly held and kept in all Points" - at section 1:"I

Charters and Statutes confirmed.

FIRST, That the Great Charter, . . . F1, and all other Statutes andOrdinances made in his Time, and in the Times of his noble

Progenitors Kings of England, and not repealed, shall be firmly
holden and kept in all Points."
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Hen5Stat2/4/1/section/I
Confirmation of Liberties (1423)
WHEREAS, King Henry VI confirmed to "all..the King's People" and also "all the Cities
and Boroughs" that they shall "have and enjoy" all their "Liberties and Franchises" "wellused". The King also confirmed that these "Liberties and Franchises well used" "shall ....notbe repealed, nor by the Common Law are repealable". This Confirmation was enshrined in
the Confirmation of Liberties Act (1423) CHAPTER 1 2 Hen 6 and is current Statute law.
Section 1 of the Confirmation of Liberties Act (1423) states:"I

Liberties confirmed.

FIRST, That Holy Church, and all the Lords Spiritual and Temporal,
andallother the King’s People, having Liberties and Franchises,
and also all the Cities
and Boroughs shall have and enjoy all their
Liberties and Franchises well used, andnot repealed, nor by the
Common Law repealable."(emphasis added)
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Hen6/2/1/section/I; and"Rex Debet Esse Sub Lege, Quia Lex Facit Regem" - "The king should be subject to thelaw for the law makes the king."
https://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/Term/RexDebetEsseSubLegeQuiaLexFacitRegem
WHEREAS, Sir Edward Coke, the then Lord Chief Justice, wrote in "Prohibitions del Roy",
that in 1607, he had told King James I that:“...His Majesty was not learned in the laws of his realm of England, and causes
which concern the life, orinheritance, or goods, or fortunes of his subjects, are not to be
decided by natural reason but by the artificial reason and judgment of law... and: that the law
was thegolden met-wand and measure to try the causes of the subjects; andwhich protected his Majesty in safety and peace:with which the King was greatly offended, and said, that then he should be under
the law, which was treason to affirm, as he said ; to which I said, that Bracton saith, quod Rex
non debet esse sub homine, sed
sub Deo et lege.”Translation:"The king is under no man, yet he is under God and the law, formakes the king."thehttps://www.fedcourt.gov.au/digital-law-library/judges-speeches/justice-rares/rares-j-law

20151009#_ftn4Bracton was an English Judge who died in 1258.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/25721291; and
The Petition of Right [1627]
WHEREAS, the Petition of Right [1627] 1627 CHAPTER 1 3 Cha 1 concerns the "Rights andLiberties" of the individual. It is current Statute law. Section VIII contains We the People's
Petition of our Rights and Liberties to the Crown seeking redress.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Cha1/3/1/section/VIII; andWHEREAS, the Bill of Rights [1688] is an Act of Parliament declaring the "Rights andLiberties" of the "Subject" as at that date. The Bill of Rights (1688) is an Act of Parliamentand is current Statute law, despite being called a "Bill". The Bill of Rights (1688) recites
previous Human Rights and Liberties confirmed and enshrined in Usages, Customs, Common
law, Statutes and previous Charters of Liberties prior to 1688 (see above). The Bill of Rights
1688 states, inter alia:"An Act declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject andSuccession of the Crowne."(17th Century English)

Settlingthe(emphasis added).

WHEREAS, the introduction to the Bill of Rights [1688] confirms that "the Subject" has"antient Rights and Liberties" under the title "The Subject's Rights".
https://archive.org/stream/pdfyuS6dgJSBYfcMp3x_/The%20Charter%20Of%20Liberties%20Of%20King%20Henry%20I%
20%281100%29_djvu.txt
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/WillandMarSess2/1/2/introduction; andWHEREAS, the Bill of Rights 1688 sets out that "Subjects' Liberties to be allowed" and that
"Ministers hereafter to serve according to the same" .
https://archive.org/stream/pdfyuS6dgJSBYfcMp3x_/The%20Charter%20Of%20Liberties%20Of%20King%20Henry%20I%
20%281100%29_djvu.txt
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/WillandMarSess2/1/2/introduction; ; andWHEREAS, the Bill of Rights 1688 places limits on the powers of the Crown. Section I of theBill of Rights requires that the King and or Queen swears a Declaration according to thewording of 30 Car. II. [1678] ie Charles II, 1678: (Stat. 2.) "An Act for the more effectual
preserving the Kings Person and Government by disabling Papists from sitting in either Houseof Parlyament.' i.e. that the King and or Queen and or Ministers and others must swear under
Oath that they are a Protestant and will Declare that they will uphold our Protestant religion as
established by law. (see the Declaration sworn, made and signed by Queen Elizabeth II inaccordance with the wording enshrined in the Accession Declaration Act 1910 on 4th
November 1952 (below).
- in Statutes of the Realm: Volume 5, 1628-80, ed. John Raithby (s.l, 1819), pp. 894-896.
British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/statutes-realm/vol5/pp894-896[accessed 8 November 2021].; andWHEREAS, our monarchs must uphold the Rule of Law by swearing to do so in theirCoronation Oath as set out in the Coronation Oath Act 1688 - still applicable law as it has notbeen repealed. See also the Coronation Oath of Queen Elizabeth II (1953) (below). The Kings
and Queens of this Realm have sworn a "Solemne Oath" to We the People to maintaine the"Statutes, Laws and Customs" of this Realm and all the People and inhabitants thereof in
their "Spiritual and Civil Rights and Properties" - as confirmed in the Introduction of theCoronation Oath Act 1688 which states, inter alia:"Whereas by the Law and Ancient Usage of this Realme the Kings
andQueens thereof have taken a Solemne Oath upon the
Evangelists at Their respective
Coronations to maintaine the Statutes
Laws and Customs of the said Realme and all
the People andInhabitants thereof in their Spirituall and Civill Rights andProperties."(emphasis added)
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/WillandMar/1/6/introduction; andCoronation Oath to uphold our Rule of Law
WHEREAS, section III of the Coronation Oath Act 1688 stipulates that the King and or Queenof this Realm must swear a "Solemne Oath" to We the People to "Govern the People of thisKingdome of England and the Dominions thereto belonging" according to the "Statutes in
Parliament agreed on and the Laws and Customs of the same ". The Coronation Oath also
stipulates that the King and or Queen must "Maintaine the Laws of God the true Professionof the Gospell and the Protestant Reformed Religion Established by Law". Section III of
the Coronation Oath Act 1688 states as follows:"III

Form of Oath and Administration thereof.

"The Arch-Bishop or Bishop shall say,Will You solemnly Promise and Sweare to Governe the People of
this
Kingdome of England and the Dominions thereto belonging
according to the Statutes
in Parlyament Agreed on and the Laws and Customs of the same?
The King and Queene shall say,
I solemnly Promise soe to doe.
Arch Bishop or Bishop,
Will You to Your power cause Law and Justice in Mercy to be Executed in all
Your Judgements.

King and Queene,
I will.
Arch Bishop or Bishop.
Will You to the utmost of Your power Maintaine the Laws of God
the true
Profession of the Gospell and the Protestant Reformed Religion Established by Law?
And will You Preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of this Realme
and to the
Churches committed to their Charge all such Rights and Privileges as by Law doe or shallappertaine unto them or any ofthem.
King and Queene.
All this I Promise to doe.
After this the King and Queene laying His and Her Hand upon the Holy
shall say,

Gospells,

King and Queene
The things which I have here before promised I will performe andhelp me God.

Keepe Soe

Then the King and Queene shall kisse the Booke."(emphasis added)
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/WillandMar/1/6/contents
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/WillandMar/1/6/section/III; andWHEREAS, every King or Queen who claims the right to succeed to the Imperial Crown of
this Realme must swear a "Solemne Oath" to We the People at their Coronation, as per section
IV of the Coronation Oath Act 1688 which states:"IV

Oath to be administered to all future Kings and Queens.

And the said Oath shall be in like manner Administered toevery King or Queene who shall Succeede to the Imperiall
Crowne of this Realme at their respective Coronations by
oneof the Archbishops or Bishops of this Realme of England forthetime
being to be thereunto appointed by such King or
Queenerespectively and in the Presence of all Persons thatshall be Attending
Assisting or otherwise present at such theirrespective Coronations Any Law
Statute or Usage to thecontrary notwithstanding."(emphasis added)
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/WillandMar/1/6/section/IV; andWHEREAS, the Act of Settlement (1700) CHAPTER 2 12 and 13 Will 3 placed further limits
on the Crown and further enshrined the "Rights and Liberties of the Subject". The
introductory text states that it is:"An Act for the further Limitation of the Crown and better securing theLiberties of the Subject".
(emphasis added)

Rights and

The Act of Settlement (1700) is still current law and has not been repealed.
WHEREAS, the Act of Settlement (1700) states, inter alia:".And Your Majesties said Subjects having Daily Experience of YourRoyallCare and Concern for the present and future Welfare of these
Kingdoms
andparticularly recommending from Your Throne a further
Provision to be made for the
Succession of the Crown in theProtestant Line for the Happiness of the Nation and
the Security of
our Religion And
it being absolutely necessary for the Safety Peace and Quiet of thisRealm toobviate all Doubts and Contentions in the same by reason of
any pretended Titles to the
Crown and to maintain a Certainty in the Succession thereof to which Your Subjects
may safely have
Recourse for their Protection in case the Limitations in the said
recited Act should determine...."(emphasis added) (see also s61 Magna Carter)
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Will3/12-13/2/contents; andWHEREAS, the Act of Declaration 1910 states that it is an "Act to alter the form of the
Declaration required to be made by the Sovereign on Accession."[3rd August 1910]. Section 1 states:"1

Alteration of form of accession declaration.

The declaration to be made, subscribed, and audibly repeatedby the Sovereign under section one of the Bill of Rights andsection two of the Act of Settlement shall be that set out in the
Schedule to this Act instead of that referred to in the said
sections."
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Edw7and1Geo5/10/29?wrap=true; andWHEREAS, the Act of Declaration 1910 states that the Declaration to be made, subscribed,
and audibly repeated by the Sovereign under section one of the Bill of Rights 1688 and section
two of the Act of Settlement shall be that set out in the Schedule to the Act of Declaration 1910.
"I [here insert the name of the Sovereign] do solemnly and sincerely inthepresence of God profess, testify, and declare that I am a faithful
Protestant, and that I will,
according to the true intent of the enactments which secure the Protestant succession totheThrone of my Realm, uphold and maintain the said enactments tothe best ofmy powers according to law."(emphasis added)
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Edw7and1Geo5/10/29?wrap=true ; andWHEREAS, Elizabeth II attended her first State Opening of Parliament on Tuesday 4
November 1952 where she read, made and signed the Accession Declaration in accordancewith section one of the Bill of Rights 1688 and section two of the Act of Settlement the presenceof the two Houses of Parliament, declaring as follows:"I, Elizabeth, do solemnly and sincerely in the presence of God profess,
testify
and declare that I am a faithful Protestant and I will, according to the true intent of
the enactments which secure the Protestant succession to the Throne, uphold andmaintaine the said enactments to the best of my powers according to law."https://www.parliament.uk/contentassets/0e72bc2437124245b718929e0dba9cbf/filename_u2
zkcbhq8mdebxb0b5et.jpg; andWHEREAS, the living Monarch of this Realm - Queen Elizabeth II - swore a "Solemne Oath"under the Coronation Oath Act 1688 to We the People on 2nd June 1953 on the occasion of her
Coronation to the Imperial Crown - as confirmed on the Royal website as follows:"In the Coronation ceremony of 2 June 1953, one of the highlights waswhen The
Queen made her Coronation Oath (taken from the Order of Service for the Coronation).
The Queen having returned to her Chair, (her Majesty having alreadyon
Tuesday, the 4th day of November, 1952, in the presence of the two
HousesofParliament, made and signed the Declarationprescribed by Act of Parliament), theArchbishop standing before her
shall administer the Coronation Oath, first asking theQueen,
Madam, is your Majesty willing to take the Oath?
And the Queen answering,
I am willing.
The Archbishop shall minister these questions; and The Queen, having
her hands, shall answer each question severally as follows:a book inArchbishop. Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the
Peoples of
the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland, Canada, Australia,
New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Pakistan, and Ceylon, and of your Possessions
and theother Territories to any of them belonging or pertaining, according totheir respective laws and customs?
Queen. I solemnly promise so to do.
Archbishop. Will you to your power cause Law and Justice, in Mercy,

tobeexecuted in all your judgements?
Queen. I will.
Archbishop. Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws ofGod
and the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of your power maintainin the United Kingdom the Protestant
Reformed Religion established by law? Will
you maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and thedoctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law
established in England? And will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy ofEngland, and to the Churches there committed to their charge, all such rights andprivileges, as by law do or shall appertain to them or any of them?
Queen. All this I promise to do.
Then the Queen arising out of her Chair, supported as before, the Sword ofState
being carried before her, shall go to the Altar, and make hersolemn Oath in the sight of
all the people to observe the premisses: laying
her right hand upon the Holy Gospel inthe great Bible (which was before carried in the procession and is now brought from the
Altar by the Archbishop, and tendered to her as she kneels upon the steps), and saying
these words:
The things which I have here before promised, I will perform andhelp me God.

keep.

So

and

the

Then the Queen shall kiss the Book and sign the Oath.
The Queen having thus taken her Oath shall return again to her Chair,
Bible shall be delivered to the Dean of Westminster."
https://www.royal.uk/coronation-oath-2-june-1953; andThe Universal Declaration of Human Rights [1948]
WHEREAS, on 10 December 1948, after the horrors of two world wars and tyrannical regimesthat had blighted human freedom, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights. That was that body’s first step in the formulation of
an international bill of human rights. The Declaration included provisions that reflected what
had been promised over 700 years earlier in Magna Carta, such as the rights not to be
subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, arbitrary arrest,
detention or deprivation of one’s property, the rights to equal recognition before, andprotection of, the law, and a fair and public hearing by an impartial tribunal in civil andcriminal matters, and freedom of movement. International Law confirms that the individual
has inalienable, fundamental human rights, as they are born free and equal in dignity andrights - as enshrined in Article 1 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights [1948] which
confirms this:"All humans are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards

each otherin the spirit of brotherhood."
https://www.ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/Documents/UDHR_Translations/eng.pdf; andWHEREAS, every individual is entitled to the rights and freedoms set out in the International
Declaration - without distinction of any kind. Article 2 of the Universal Declaration on Human
Rights confirms this:"Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set out in thisDeclaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour,sex,language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth orother status."(emphasis added)
https://www.ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/Documents/UDHR_Translations/eng.pdf; andThe Right not to be discriminated against - the absolute Prohibition of discrimination
WHEREAS, it is a fundamental principle of law that equality before the law includes theprohibition of discrimination i.e. any discrimination is prohibited, for example, in access to
education, to work, to medical care and so on, as well as in means and entitlements forachieving this access. The legal and lawful principles of non-discrimination and equality
requires you, every individual, the school and every organisation, including theGovernment, to address discrimination in guidance, policies, and practices.
Discrimination is prohibited on the basis of race, colour, sex, language, religion, political orother opinion (including opinions on medical or pharmaceutical or non-pharmaceuticalinterventions), national or social origin, property, birth, physical or mental disability, healthstatus (including HIV/AIDS or vaccinated/unvaccinated or masked/unmasked ortested/untested), sexual orientation and civil, political, social or other status, which has theintention or effect of impairing the equal enjoyment or exercise of human rights - including theright to education, the right to life, the right to health and other rights. Article 7 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights confirms this, as it declares:"All are equal before the law and are entitled without
protection of the law.

discrimination to equal

All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in
violation ofthis Declaration and against any incitement to suchdiscrimination." (emphasis added)
https://www.ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/Documents/UDHR_Translations/eng.pdf; andWHEREAS, article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [1948] is enshrined in
Article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1996) which declares"All persons are equal before the law and entitled without any discrimination to
the equal protection of the law.
In this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination andguarantee to all
persons equal and effective protection against
discrimination on any ground such as
race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin,property,
birth or other status." (emphasis added)

https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/ccpr.aspx#:~:text=Article%2026
HYPERLINK"https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/ccpr.aspx"&
HYPERLINK"https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/ccpr.aspx"text=In%20this%20respect%
2C%20the%20law,property%2C%20birth%20or%20other%20status. ; andThe Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms - theEuropean Convention on Human Rights [1950]
WHEREAS, the European Convention on Human Rights (the "ECHR") agreed by the Councilof Europe at Rome on 4th November 1950 (see below) enshrines the Universal Declaration on
Human Rights into European law; andHuman Rights Act 1998
WHEREAS, the ECHR is enshrined in Statute law Human Rights Act 1998 CHAPTER 42.
The introduction to the Act states that it is "An Act to give further effect to rights andfreedoms guaranteed under the European Convention on Human Rights" - the"Convention". The "Convention" is defined under section 21 of the Human Rights Act as theConvention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, agreed by theCouncil of Europe at Rome on 4th November 1950 as it has effect for the time being in relation
to the United Kingdom
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/section/21;
WHEREAS, section 22 (5) of the Human Rights Act, states that the Crown is bound by theAct:"22 (5)This Act binds the Crown."(emphasis added)

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/section/22; andWHEREAS, under section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998, public authorities must not act
in contravention of the Rights set out in the ECHR. Section 6 states, inter alia:"6

Acts of public authorities.

(1)
It is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which isincompatible with a Convention right."
A "public authority" is defined in section 6 (3) as “public authority” includes—"6 (b) any person certain of whose functions are functions of a public
nature."Under section 6 (6) "an act" includes "a failure to act" to prevent Convention rights
being derogated from.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/section/6; andWHEREAS, Section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 requires that primary and subordinate
legislation must be interpreted in a way which is compatible with the Rights set out in the
ECHR:"3 Interpretation of legislation.
(1)
So far as it is possible to do so, primary legislation andsubordinate legislation must be read and given effect in a way
which is compatible with the Convention rights."
You are therefore required to interpret the current legislation in a way which is compatible withthe human rights as set out in the European Convention on Human Rights.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/introduction; andWHEREAS, under section 7 of the Human Rights Act 1998, a victim of an
unlawful act under section 6 (1) can bring proceedings against the authority, or rely on the
ECHR Rights:"7

Proceedings.

(1)
A person who claims that a public authority has acted (orproposes to act) in a way which is made unlawful by section 6(1)
may—
(a)
(b)

bring proceedings against the authority under this Act in theappropriate court or tribunal, or
rely on the Convention right or rights concerned in any legal
proceedings, but only if he is (or would be) a victim of theunlawful act.

(7)

For the purposes of this section, a person is a victim of an unlawful
act only if he would be a victim for the purposes of Article 34 of theConvention if proceedings were brought in the European Court of
Human Rights in respect of that act."
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/section/7; andWHEREAS, section 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 states:"8

Judicial remedies.

(1)

In relation to any act (or proposed act) of a public authority which thecourt finds is (or would be) unlawful, it may grant such relief orremedy, or make such order, within its powers as it considers just andappropriate."

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/section/8; andSafeguard for existing human rights
WHEREAS, section 11 of the Human Rights Act 1998 provides a further safeguard for existing
human rights conferred on him "by or under any law having effect in any part of the United
Kingdom" as follows:"11

Safeguard for existing human rights.
A person’s reliance on a Convention right does not restrict—(a)

any other right or freedom conferred on him by or under any
law having effect in any part of the United Kingdom; or(b)

his right to make any claim or bring any proceedings which hecould make or bring apart from sections 7 to 9."(emphasis added)

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/section/11; andDuty of Care - "loco parentis"
WHEREAS, the common law duty of care, is of course, for you, the teachers and the School
and others to look after the health and safety of its children as if it were the parent "locoparentis".
https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/in+loco+parentis; andDuty to ascertain whether the Non-Pharmaceutical Interventions and Pharmaceutical
Interventions are safe and do not cause more harm than good
WHEREAS, you have a duty of care, as well as a lawful, moral and ethical duty in yourpublic and private capacity and in your current position and as a source of authority toascertain whether the Non-Pharmaceutical Interventions ("NPIs") - such as social distancing,isolation, quarantining and "locking down" of living men women and children - , and thePharmaceutical Interventions ("PIs") - such as the use of face masks, COVID-19 testing, handsanitising and the use of the so-called "COVID-19 vaccines" - that you are employing tomanage the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus on your school premises are causing more harmthan good to the individuals concerned - (see also Health & Safety laws cited below); andWHEREAS, you have a legal duty of care to understand the experimental nature of the NPIs
and the PIs including the experimental use of face masks , the experimental COVID-19 tests,
and the experimental novel emergency use temporary licensed so-called COVID-19 vaccines
for children and others in your school. You have a legal duty of care to acknowledge the lackof long-term safety data and/or fertility data and/or health risks including disability and deathassociated with these medical interventions. ; andDuty to inform the individual of the experimental nature and of the material risks of the
NPIs and PIs being used

WHEREAS, furthermore, you have a duty of care to inform each living man and woman
and child of the experimental nature of these NPIs and PIs and of the material risks
attributed to these measures; andDuty to ensure measures are Necessary, Proportionate, Rational, Safe, the least restrictive
measures, the least dangerous measures, and based on sound scientific evidence and on
the Rule of Law, including, inter alia, Health & Safety Laws***Take note that "safe" is defined by Black's Law Dictionary as "the amount of exposurethat will cause no harm or no damage after exposure."https://thelawdictionary.org/safe/; and ;WHEREAS, actors, such as you, who are acting in your capacity, and who are authorising
and/or administering experimental so called COVID-19 vaccines, the experimental use of facemasks, the experimental use of testing and the experimental use of social distancing,quarantining and locking down of healthy individuals are exposing men, women and children,
populations and patients to serious, unnecessary and avoidable risks. The available evidence
and science indicate that the experimental so-called COVID-19 vaccines and otherexperimental measures listed are not necessary, are not proportionate, are not rational, arenot based on sound scientific evidence, are not the least restrictive measures and are notsafe. As such, these NPIs and PIs do not meet the standard required of "safe" measures.
(see below for Health & Safety laws relating to the legal statutory duty to ensure that suchmeasures are safe).
Duty to ensure measures are Justifiable
WHEREAS, requiring COVID-19 vaccines and other experimental measures listed cannot bejustified in almost every workplace or school in the UK. While there are numerous reasons for
this, the main ones are, inter alia:(a)the legal, lawful, moral and ethical requirement for freely
given and informed consent for medical procedures; and(b)denying an unvaccinated person the ability to work or go toschool/college/university on health andsafety grounds, whether
at the initiation of an employer, school or part of a public healthorder amounts to prima facie breach of the human rights
laws such as an individual's right not to be discriminatedagainst, as well as a prima facie breach of an individual's right towork or to gain an education; and(c)the requirements to comply with the disability
discrimination laws, both domestic, European andInternational as many individuals with disabilities cannot comply
with these NPIs and PIs without exacerbating their pre-existingdisability. ; andUK Health & Safety at Work legislation
WHEREAS, you and other teachers and health and social care professionals and others, havea duty and a responsibility to keep yourselves informed of professional standards relevant

to obtaining an individual's informed consent in their practice. Likewise, the employer orservice provider has a responsibility to staff to provide access to legal information which may
have a bearing on the service provided - National Consent Policy, Health & Safety Executive("theHSE"),
https://www.hse.ie/eng/about/who/qid/other-quality-improvementprogrammes/consent/national-consent-policy-hse-v1-3-june-2019.pdf; andThe legal duty to conduct a "Suitable and Sufficient" Individual Risk Assessment - reg. 3of the Health & Safety at Work Management Regulations 1999
WHEREAS, you have a legal statutory duty under the Health & Safety at Work Act 1974
and the Health & Safety at Work Management Regulations 1999 to conduct a "suitable andsufficient" Health & Safety at Work Risk Assessment on the individual living man woman
or child to determine whether there is a risk of harm to their health and safety from the NPIs
and the PIs that you are employing in your school and whether the risk of harm outweighs thebenefit to them as an individual i.e. an Individual Health & Safety Risk Assessment. Regulation
3 of The Management of Health & Safety at Work Regulations 1999 states:"Risk assessment
3.—(1) Every employer shall make a suitable and sufficient assessment of—(a)the risks to the health and safety of his employees to which they are
exposed whilst they are at work; and(b)

the risks to the health and safety of persons not in his employment
arising out of or in connection with the conduct by him of his
undertaking, for the purpose of identifying the measures he needs totake to comply with the requirements and prohibitions imposed
upon him by or under the relevant statutory provisions..

(5)

In making or reviewing the assessment, an employer who employs or
is to employ a young person shall take particular account of—(a)the inexperience, lack of awareness of risks and immaturityof young persons;" (emphasis added)

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1999/3242/regulation/3/made; andWHEREAS, section 4 of the Health & Safety at Work Management Regulations 1999 entitled"Principles of prevention to be applied" states that:"4.
Where an employer implements any preventive andprotective measures he shall do so on the basis of theprinciples specified in Schedule 1 to these Regulations."
added); and(emphasis

Statutory Duty to Avoid Risks, Evaluate the Risks, Combat Risks at source, Replace thedangerous by the non-dangerous or the less dangerous
WHEREAS, Schedule 1 of The Management of Health & Safety at Work Regulations 1999

sets out the "General Principles of Prevention" as follows:"SCHEDULE 1
GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF PREVENTION(This Schedule specifies the general principles of prevention set out in
6(2) of Council Directive 89/391/EEC)(1)

Article(a)avoiding risks;(b)evaluating the risks which cannot be avoided;(c)combating the risks at source;(f)replacing the dangerous by the non-dangerous or the lessdangerous;"
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1999/3242/schedule/1/made; andStatutory duty to keep the health of your employees under surveillance
WHEREAS, you have a statutory legal duty to keep the health of your employees undersurveillance "as is appropriate having regard to the risks to their health and safety" which
is identified by the Health & Safety at Work Individual Risk Assessment conducted underregulation 3 of the Health & Safety at Work Management Regulations 1999, according toregulation 6 which states:"Health surveillance
6.
Every employer shall ensure that his employees are provided
with such health surveillance as is appropriate having
regard to the risks to their health and safety which are
identified by the assessment." (emphasis added)
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1999/3242/regulation/6/made; andStatutory legal duty to offer particular protection to young persons
WHEREAS, you have a statutory legal duty to offer particular protection to young
persons under regulation 19 of the Health & Safety at Work Management Regulations 1999
which states:"Protection of young persons
19.—(1)

Every employer shall ensure that young persons employed byhim are protected at work from any risks to their health orsafety which are a consequence of their lack of experience, orabsence of awareness of existing or potential risks or the factthat young persons have not yet fully matured."https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1999/3242/regulation/19/made; andStatutory duty to immediately "CEASE and DESIST" from employing harmful
measuresWHEREAS, should the Health & Safety at Work individual Risk Assessment conducted inaccordance with the Health & Safety at work laws provide evidence that these NPI's and PI's
are causing harm and or the risks outweigh the potential benefits, you have a legal statutory
duty to communicate and take actions to stop the administration of these NPIs and PIs
immediately - i.e. to "CEASE AND DESIST"; andLawful, legal, moral, ethical and Statutory duty to obtain Informed Consent, freely given,from the individual PRIOR to the administration of NPIs and PIs
WHEREAS, you have a legal, lawful, moral, ethical and statutory duty to obtain the
Informed Consent - freely given - of the individual living man woman or child prior to theadministration and or policy and or mandate of the NPIs and PIs that you are employing inyour school- including the experimental face masks, tests, hand sanitisers and the so-called
COVID-19 vaccines - to living men, women and children. ; andFailure to obtain Informed Consent - freely given - is a prima facie breach of civil andcriminal laws
WHEREAS, administering, mandating or requiring or facilitating, promoting, encouraging aliving man woman or child who is not individually risk assessed and who is not fully
informed of the risks and safety hazards of wearing face masks, taking a test, using handsanitisers or taking experimental so-called COVID-19 vaccines and or who is not provided
with the opportunity to provide their fully informed consent feely given is unlawful, illegal,
immoral and unethical and a breach of their inalienable freedoms and their inalienable
rights as well as a prima facie criminal breach of the Health & Safety at Work laws andcriminal law. ; andCriminal liability for breach of Health & Safety laws
WHEREAS, you are accountable and liable as an employer in any criminal proceedings
for a contravention of the Health & Safety provisions - see under regulation 21 of the Health& Safety at Work Management Regulations 1999 which states:"Provisions as to liability
21.
Nothing in the relevant statutory provisions shall operate so as
to afford an employer a defence in any criminal proceedings
a contravention of those provisions by reason of any act ordefault of—
(a)
(b)

for

an employee of his, ora person appointed by him under regulation 7."

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1999/3242/regulation/21/made; andThe law governing clinical trials involving "live human subjects" i.e. "live humanexperiments"
WHEREAS, the use of face masks, testing equipment, and the so-called COVID-19 vaccines
for children are entirely experimental and amount to a "live human experiment" on "live humansubjects." The so-called COVID-19 vaccines are still in clinical trial stage until 2023 and is a"live human experiment" as is using the RT-PCR test and the wearing of face masks by children
in school to combat the SARS-CoV-2 virus. As such, conducting such a live humanexperiment using children as the live human subjects in these clinical trials, constitutes a
prima facie breach of International, European and UK civil and criminal laws and codes of
medical ethics - unless lawful, legal, moral and ethical informed consent - freely given - isprovided by the individual child who has the competence and the capacity to provide theirconsent to be experimented upon, having been informed of all the material risks of theexperiment, including the material risk of DEATH, SERIOUS INJURY, INJURY, HARM,
INCONVENIENCE and the LONG TERM CONSEQUENCES to their health, fertility,
immune system, heart, nervous system and major organs and to their well being.; andWHEREAS, you have a duty of care and a legal statutory duty, and a moral and ethicalduty to avoid all harm, loss, injury, suffering and death and all adverse events associatedwith these NPIs and PIs.; andThe legal, lawful, ethical and moral requirement for Informed Consent - freely given - by
the individual to medical treatment or procedures or live human experiments
WHEREAS, other than in exceptional circumstances, conducting a live human experiment on
a living man, woman or child or conducting medical procedures or treatment on an individualliving man, woman or child without obtaining their informed consent - freely given - to taking
part in the live human experiment or to receiving medical treatment or procedures is a violationof their fundamental, inalienable lawful, legal and constitutional rights. Voluntary consent forany medical treatment is a fundamental part of the laws of the UK and international laws. It islegally, lawfully, ethically, and morally wrong to coerce, threaten, intimidate, sanction,fine, punish, guilt-trip, shame, pressurise, or use any other form of means to obtainconsent from a living man, woman or child to participate in a clinical trial or to receive
medical treatment and or medical procedures - see below; andWHEREAS, the duty to obtain an individual's informed consent freely given to taking partin a live human experiment and or medical treatment or medical procedure is a lawful, legal,
moral and ethical duty, necessity and requirement because individual living men, womenand children have a fundamental inalienable human right to bodily integrity, that being
autonomy and self - determination over their own body without unconsented physical or mental
intrusion - "Voluntas Aegroti Suprema Lex" - "Over his or her own mind and body, theindividual is Sovereign"- (John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, 1859).
- https://thegreatthinkers.org/mill/major-works/liberty-2/; andWHEREAS, "Over his or her own mind or body the individual is sovereign" - Voluntas
Aegroti Suprema Lex- is a fundamental principle of law that binds you. An individual has
sovereignty over their own mind and body i.e. they have the right to bodily integrity. This
fundamental right cannot be limited or derogated from, other than in accordance with the law.
Salus populi suprema lex esto (Latin: "The health (welfare, good, salvation, felicity) of thepeople should be the supreme law", "Let the good (or safety) of the people be the supreme(or highest) law", or "The welfare of the people shall be the supreme law") is a maxim or
principle found in Cicero's De Legibus (book III, part III, sub. VIII). http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/cicero/leg3.shtml. Cicero (3 January 106 - 7 December 43 BC)
was a Roman statesman, lawyer, scholar, philosopher. This evidences that this principle of law
has been enshrined in our common law system and in our codes of medical ethics since at leastpre-ancient and Roman times; andWHEREAS, this right to bodily integrity includes the individual's right to life, and the rightnot to be tortured or given inhumane, cruel or degrading treatment or punishment, which
includes the right not to be experimented upon or to be given medical or other treatment
without providing their informed consent - freely given, (see below) and the right not tohave their psychiatric integrity breached through psychological techniques or methods suchas psychological warfare (see below), the right to self determination and the right to privacy(see below) ; andThe Right to Life, Liberty and Security of Person
WHEREAS, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [1948] confirms the "right to life,
liberty and security of person" in Article 3 which states:"Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person". (emphasis added)
https://www.ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/Documents/UDHR_Translations/eng.pdf;
The inherent Right to Life
WHEREAS, Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966) also
enshrines the "right to life" as follows:"1.

Every human being has the inherent right to life.
This right shall be protected by law.
No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.

3.
When deprivation of life constitutes the crime of genocide, it
is understood that nothing in this article shall authorise any
State Party to the present Covenant to derogate in any way
from any obligation assumed under the provisions of thisConvention and on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime
Genocide." (emphasis added)of

https://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CCPR.aspx
https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocideconvention.shtml#:~:text=The%20Convention%20on%20the%20Prevention%20and%20Pun
ishment%20of,for%20the%20first%20time%20the%20crime%20of%20genocide.;and
The Right to Life shall be protected by law.
WHEREAS, Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [1948] is enshrined in
Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights which confirms the "right to life" asfollows:"Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law.
No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in theexecutionofasentence of court following his conviction for a crime forlaw." (emphasis added)

which this penalty is provided byhttps://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf
https://echr.coe.int/Documents/Guide_Art_2_ENG.pdf; and
The Right not to be subject to Torture, or to Cruel, Inhumane or Degrading treatment or
punishment
WHEREAS, the inherent, inalienable, fundamental, "right to life" includes the "right not to be
subject to torture or to cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment". This isenshrined in Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [1948] which states:"No one shall be subject to torture or to cruel, inhumane ortreatment or punishment." (emphasis added)

degradinghttps://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights; andWHEREAS, Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [1948] is enshrined in
Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights which states:"No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhumane or degrading
treatment". (emphasis added)
https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf
The Right not to be subjected - without his or her free consent - to medical or scientificexperimentation
WHEREAS, Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [1948] is enshrined in
Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966), which states:"No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhumane ortreatment or punishment.

degradingIn particular, no one shall be subjected without his free consent toscientific experimentation." (emphasis added)

medical or

https://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CCPR.aspx; andNon - Derogable Rights
WHEREAS, paragraph 58 of the Siracusa Principles under the heading of "Non-Derogable
Rights" provides that the rights set out in the International Convention on Civil and Political
Rights cannot be derogated from - even "in time of emergency threatening the life of thenation.":"No state party shall, even in time of emergency threatening thelife of thenation, derogate from the Covenant's guarantees of the right to life; freedom
fromtorture, cruel, inhumane or degrading
treatment or punishment, and from medical orscientificexperimentation without
everywhere before the law; andfree consent......the right to recognition
freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

These rights are not derogable under any conditions even for the
purpose of preserving the life of the nation." (emphasis added)

asserted

https://www.icj.org/wp-content/uploads/1984/07/Siracusa-principles-ICCPR-legalsubmission-1985-eng.pdf; andInformed Consent - the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Dignity of
the Human Being with regard to the Application of Biology and Medicine: Convention on
Human Rights and Biomedicine
WHEREAS, Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966) is
enshrined in Article 5 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Dignity of the
Human Being with regard to the Application of Biology and Medicine: Convention on Human
Rights and Biomedicine (ETS No 164) (1997), Oviedo, Spain (the "Oviedo Convention"). The
Oviedo Convention is a legally binding international legal instrument on the protectionof human rights in the medical field. It sets out fundamental principles applicable to daily
medical practice and is regarded as such in the European Treaty on patient's rights. Chapter II- Consent, Article 5 - General Rule states:"Chapter II – Consent
Article 5 – General rule
An intervention in the health field may only be carried out after the person
concerned has given free and informed consent to it.
This person shall beforehand be given appropriate information as to the purpose
and nature of the intervention as well as on its consequences andrisks.
The person concerned may freely withdraw consent at any time."(emphasis added)
https://rm.coe.int/168007cf98; andTHE RIGHT to accept or refuse medical treatment and or medical procedures
WHEREAS, the right to bodily integrity includes the long-established common law rightof the individual to choose to accept or refuse medical treatment or interventions, as confirmedin the case of Re T (Adult - Refusal of Treatment (1993) Fam 95 at 107, Lord Donaldson stated:"An adult patient who...suffers from no mental incapacity has an absolute right tochoose whether to consent to medical treatment, to refuse it or to choose one rather thananother of the treatments
being offered. This right of choice is not limited to decisions
which others might regard as sensible. It exists notwithstanding that the reasons formaking the choice are rational, irrational, known, unknown or even non- existent.
This position reflects the value that society places on personalautonomyinmatters of medical treatment and the very longestablished right of the patient to choose

to accept or refuse medical treatment from his or her own doctor (voluntas aegroti supremalex- Over his or her own body and mind, the individual is sovereign) (John Stuart Mill,On Liberty, 1859.).";-https://www.globalhealthrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/EWCA-1992-In-re-T-adultrefusal-of-medical-treatment.pdfand; andThe law of Negligence applies with respect to a breach of the Right to bodily integrity Informed consent - freely given - must be obtained prior to medical procedures and or
medical treatments and or participation in a live human experiment
WHEREAS, the law of negligence is engaged when a person's physical and psychiatricintegrity is breached. In UK case law, in the judgement in the Supreme Court decision in thecase of Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board [2015] UKSC 11 Lady Hale stated inter alia:"It is now well recognised that the interest which the law ofnegligence
protects is a person's interest in their own physicaland psychiatric integrity, an
important feature of which is their autonomy, their freedom to decide what shall and shallnot be done with their body.
An adult person of sound mind is entitled to decide which, if any, of theforms of treatment to undergo, and her consent must be
obtained
beforeinterfering with her bodily integrity isundertaken."available
treatment"..it could now be stated with a reasonable degree of confidence thatfor informed consent was firmly part of English law." -

the

need

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2013-0136-judgment.pdf
https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2013-0136.html; andThe legal Duty to obtain Informed Consent by BEFORE treatment with bodily integrity
is undertaken
WHEREAS, in the Supreme Court judgment in the UK case of Montgomery v Lanarkshire
Health Board [2015] UKSC 11 (the "Montgomery case") was cited in the UK High Court(Queen's Bench) case of Thefaut v Johnston 2017] EWHC 497 (QB) in the Judgment of thecourt at paras [52] and [53] entitled "Informed consent", which states, inter alia:"52.

In Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board [2015] UKSC 11("Montgomery") in the joint judgment of Lord Reed and Lord
Kerr (with whom Lord Neuberger, Lord Clarke, Lord Wilson andLord Hodge agreed) it was stated at paragraphs [87]...":"87. An adult person of sound mind is entitled to decide
which, if any, of the available forms of treatment toundergo, and her consent must be obtained before
treatmentinterfering with her bodily integrity isundertaken.";(emphasis added) andThe legal Duty of Care to ensure the patient is aware of any Material Risks involved inany medical treatment and of any reasonable alternative or variant treatments - the testof Materiality of Risks
WHEREAS, in the UK case of Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board [2015] UKSC 11 in
the Judgment of Lord Reed and Lord Kerr (with whom Lord Neuberger, Lord Clarke, Lord
Wilson and Lord Hodge agreed) it was stated at paragraphs [87], inter alia:"87. (cont.) The doctor is therefore under a duty to takereasonable care to ensure that the patient is aware ofmaterial risks involved in any recommended
and of any reasonable alternative or variant

anytreatment,
treatments.

The test of materiality is whether, in the circumstancesof the particular case, a reasonable person in thepatient's position would be likely to attach
significance to the risk,or the doctor is or should
reasonably be aware that the particular patient would
likely to attach significance to it."; andbe

WHEREAS, in the UK case of Thefault v Johnson, at paragraph [53] and [56]of the judgment,
the court clarifies how "Materiality" of risks is measured.
53.
"...."Materiality" is measured according to that which thepatient would attach significance to, i.e. in the context of thedecision to be taken."; and56.
Paragraph [89] suggests that the subjective element could
extend quite far.....:"89. Three further points should be made. First, it follows fromthis approach that the assessment of whether a risk ismaterial cannot be reduced to percentages. The
significance of a given risk is likely to reflect a variety offactors besides its magnitude: for example, the nature oftherisk, the effect which its occurrence would haveupon the life of
the patient, the importance to thepatient of the benefits
sought to be achieved by thetreatment, the alternatives available, andthe risks
involved in those alternatives.
The assessment is therefore fact-sensitive, andsensitive also to the characteristics of the patient.";(emphasis added) and
The requirement to ensure that "adequate time and space" is provided to the individual
to have a "dialogue" regarding the Material Risks involved and the need to "de-jargonise
communications"
WHEREAS, in the UK case of Thefaut v Johnston 2017] EWHC 497 (QB) in the Judgmentof the court at paras [58] and [59] under the sub heading "Informed consent", the Judgment

states, inter alia:"58. Paragraph [90] of Montgomery is significant in shedding light on
the modus operandi of communication. Two points emerge.
First the centrality of "dialogue" is stressed. ....The issue isnotso much the means of communication but its adequacy. Mr
Peacock used theapt expression "adequate time and space"to describe the characteristics of a"dialogue" that satisfied thetest in law.;
59.
The second point arising from paragraph [90] is the need tode-jargonise communications to ensure that the message isconveyed in a comprehensible manner....this can include
caution in the use of percentages. There is the risk that they canconvey false degrees of certainty where, in truth, none reallyexists. ... Paragraph [90] states:"90.

Secondly, the doctor's advisory role involves dialogue,
the aim of which is to ensure that the patientunderstands the seriousness of her condition, and theanticipated benefits and risks of the proposed
treatment and any reasonable alternatives, so that
she is then in a position to make an informed
decision. This role will only be performed effectively if
the information provided is comprehensible.
The doctor's duty is not therefore fulfilled bybombarding the patient with technical information
which she cannot reasonably be expected to grasp, letalone by routinely demanding her signature on aconsent form." (emphasis added)

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2017/497.html#para58
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2017/497.html#para59; andNHS CONSTITUTION
WHEREAS, the NHS Constitution for England (last updated 2015) states under the heading"Respect, consent and confidentiality" that every person has the right to:"(a) be treated with dignity and respect, in accordance with their
human rights;(b)accept or refuse treatment that is offered, and not be given
any physical examination or treatment unless they havegiven valid consent;(c)be given information about the test and treatment options
available, what they involve and their risks and benefits;

(d)be involved in planning and making decisions about their healthand care with their care provider or providers." (emphasis
added)
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-nhs-constitution-for-england/the-nhsconstitution-for-england; andThe General Medical Council - Doctors are expected to keep up to date with and practise
in line with GMC guidance and the law
WHEREAS, the General Medical Council's (the "GMC") factsheet entitled "Key legislationand case law relating to decision making and consent", states that
"This factsheet sets out some of the key legislation and case law relating to medical
decision making and consent in the UK. It is not intended to be a comprehensive list, nor isit a substitute forindependent, up-to-date legal advice.
We expect doctors to keep up to date with and practise in line withguidance and the law."; (emphasis added)

ourhttps://www.gmc-uk.org/-/media/documents/factsheet---key-legislation-and-case-lawrelating-to-decision-making-and-consent-84176182.pdf; andWHEREAS, the right to refuse medical treatment includes the right to refuse life saving
treatment as per the UK Court of Protection's decision in the case of King's College NHSFoundation Trust v C [2015] EWCOP 80 in which the Judgment states, inter alia:"A capacious individual is entitled to decide whether or not to accept
medicaltreatment. The right to refuse treatment extends to declining treatment that would, if
administered, save the life of thepatient."https://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed151871; andWHEREAS, the GMC factseet cites the following in relation to the case of King's College
NHS Foundation Trust v C [2015] EWCOP 80:"Assessing a patient’s capacity when they make a decision that is consideredunwise:The Court of Protection held the following.
A person with capacity is entitled to decide whether or not to accept
medicaltreatment. The right to refuse treatment extends todeclining treatment that would
save the life of the patient.
A person must not be judged to lack capacity to make a decision
they make a decision that is considered to be unwise."solely because

https://www.gmc-uk.org/-/media/documents/factsheet---key-legislation-and-case-lawrelating-to-decision-making-and-consent-84176182.pdf

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 - the legal framework for assessing an individual's mental
capacity to provide informed consent to medical treatment
WHEREAS, the GMC factsheet cites the following in relation to the law applicable toindividual's aged 16 and over and their individual capacity to consent to medical treatment inEngland and Wales as follows:"Mental Capacity Act 2005
This Act provides a legal framework for making decisions on behalf ofpeopleaged 16 or over who lack capacity to make decisions
themselves. It clarifies:
who can make decisions, including decisions about
medical care and treatment, for people who are unable todecide for themselves-

how those decisions should be made.

Doctors and other healthcare professionals must refer to the Mental
Capacity
Act Code of Practice, which explains how the Act should workon a daily basis and sets
out the steps that those using andinterpreting it should follow when:-assessing a person’s capacity

reaching a decision in the best interests of a person who
does not have capacity."
https://www.gmc-uk.org/-/media/documents/factsheet---key-legislation-and-case-lawrelating-to-decision-making-and-consent-84176182.pdf
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/9/contents
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/mental-capacity-act-code-of-practicehttps://www.bma.org.uk/advice-and-support/ethics/adults-who-lack-capacity/mentalcapacity-act-toolkit; andPatients lacking capacity but who previously objected to vaccination could not be forcibly
treated with a COVID-19 vaccine
WHEREAS, In a recent ruling by the Court of Protection, SS v Richmond [2021] EWCOP 31,
it was found that a dementia patient who lacked capacity but who previously objected tovaccination could not be forcibly treated with a COVID-19 vaccine.
-https://www.courtofprotectionhub.uk/cases/ss-v-london-borough-of-richmond-upon-thamesanor-2021-ewcop-31
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCOP/2021/31.html; andThe imposition of medical treatment without consent constitutes an interference witharticle 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights

WHEREAS, the case law of the European Court of Human Rights establishes that theprovision of medical treatment without consent constitutes an interference with article 8 of theEuropean Convention on Human Rights ("the ECHR"). The imposition of medical treatment
without the consent of a mentally competent patient, would interfere with a person's physicaland or mental integrity in a manner capable of engaging the rights protected under article 8 (1)of the Convention as held in the case of Pretty v United Kingdom (2002) 35 EHRR 1 (EctHR),
in which the court held, inter alia:"the imposition of medical treatment, without the consent of amentallycompetent adult patient, would interfere with a person's physical integrity in a mannercapable of engaging the rights
protected under article 8 (1) of the Convention[the ECHR]."(emphasis added)
https://www.globalhealthrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/ECtHR-2002-Pretty-vUnited-Kingdom.pdf- https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Guide_Art_8_ENG.pdf; andLive human experiments
WHEREAS, there are extensive lawful, moral, ethical and legal obligations governing theparticipation of a live human subject in a live human experimental clinical trial, including theduty to obtain fully informed consent, freely given from the live human subject to participate
in the live human experiment in accordance with the Rule of Law - Informed Consent, freely
given, is a legal, lawful, moral and ethical requirement for all individuals participating ina clinical trial. It is unlawful to enrol anyone in a clinical trial without full and informed
consent, freely given - see below and see Exhibit: Nuremburg Code [1947] which sets down
10 principles which must be followed by researchers in a clinical trial involving live humansubjects. The British Medical Journal states the following in relation to the Nuremburg Code:"The judgment by the war crimes tribunal at Nuremberg laid down 10
standards
to which physicians must conform when carrying out
experiments on human subjects
in a new code that is now accepted worldwide.
This judgment established a new standard of ethical medical behaviour for the post
World War II human rights era. Amongst otherrequirements, this document enunciates
the requirement of voluntary informed consent of the human subject. The principle ofvoluntary informed consent protects the right of the individual to control his own
body.
This code also recognizes that the risk must be weighed against thebenefit, and that unnecessary pain and suffering must
be avoided.

expected

This code recognizes that doctors should avoid actions that injure human patients.
The principles established by this code for medical practice now haveextended into general codes of medical ethics."(emphasis added) ; andbeenhttp://www.cirp.org/library/ethics/nuremberg/
https://famous-trials.com/nuremberg/1903-doctortrial
https://crimeofaggression.info/documents/6/1946_Nuremberg_Judgement.pdf; andWHEREAS, clinical trials involving live human subjects are defined as a "live humanexperiment" with "live human participants". Therefore the International obligations to protect
the live human participants in a live human experiment must be upheld including those set out
in, inter alia, the Nuremburg Code [1947], the Helsinki Declaration [1964], the Oviedo
Convention [1997], the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights [2005], applies.
Under UK Statute law, clinical trials involving "medicines for human use" engage theMedicines for Human Use (Clinical Trials) Regulations 2004. All these governing codes,
conventions, declarations and statutes require the "informed consent, freely given" of the live
human subject to participate in a live human experiment and or clinical trial; andWHEREAS, the Declaration of Helsinki [1964] is defined in Part 1 of Schedule 1 of theMedicines for Human Use (Clinical Trials) Regulations 2004 as follows:"SCHEDULE 1
CONDITIONS AND PRINCIPLES OF GOOD CLINICAL PRACTICE
THE PROTECTION OF CLINICAL TRIAL SUBJECTSAND FORPART 1APPLICATION AND INTERPRETATION"2. In this Schedule—“Declaration of Helsinki” means the Declaration of Helsinki adopted by theWorld Medical Assembly in June 1964, as amended by the General Assemblyofthe Association in October 1975, October 1983, September 1989 andOctober 1996."
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2004/1031/schedule/1/made; andWHEREAS, the Declaration of Helsinki [1964] is incorporated into PART 2 of Schedule 1 of
the Medicines for Human Use (Clinical Trials) Regulations 2004 as follows:"PART 2
CONDITIONS AND PRINCIPLES WHICH APPLY TO ALL CLINICAL TRIALS
Principles based on International Conference on Harmonisation GCP
1.

Clinical trials shall be conducted in accordance with the ethicalprinciples that have their origin in the Declaration of Helsinki, andthat are consistent with good clinical practice and the requirementsof these Regulations."

Guidelinehttps://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2004/1031/schedule/1/made; andLegal Statutory duty to apply the conditions and principles specified in Part 2 of the 2004
Regulations
WHEREAS, section 1 of PART 1 of Schedule 1 of the Medicines for Human Use (Clinical
Trials) Regulations 2004 states as follows:
"1.—

(1)

The conditions and principles specified in Part 2 apply to allclinical trials.

(2)

If any subject of a clinical trial is—(a)(b)

an adult able to give informed consent, oran adult who has given informed consent to taking part inthe clinical trial prior to the onset of incapacity,
the conditions and principles specified in Part 3 apply in
relation to that subject.
(3)

If any subject of a clinical trial is a minor, the conditions andprinciples specified in Part 4 apply in relation to that subject.
(emphasis added)(4)

If any subject—(a)is an adult unable by virtue of physical or mental incapacity
to give informed consent, and(b)
did not, prior to the onset of incapacity, give or refuse togive informed consent to taking part in the clinical trial,
the conditions and principles specified in Part 5 apply in
relation to that subject.
(5)

If any person—(a)(b)

is an adult unable by virtue of physical or mental incapacity
to give informed consent, andhas, prior to the onset of incapacity, refused to giveinformed consent to taking part in the clinical trial,that person cannot be included as a subject in the clinical
trial."

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2004/1031/schedule/1/made; andLegal statutory definition of Informed Consent which must be provided by an individual
participant in a clinical trial
WHEREAS, the definition of "informed consent" which must be provided by the individual
participant in a clinical trial in the UK is defined in the definitions section of Part 1 of theMedicines for Human Use (Clinical Trials) Regulations 2004 as follows:“informed consent” shall be construed in accordance with paragraph 3
Schedule 1".

of Part 1 ofhttps://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2004/1031/part/1/made; andLegal statutory requirements for informed consent to participate in a clinical trial under
the Medicines for Human Use (Clinical Trials) Regulations 2004
A person gives informed consent to take part in a clinical trial ONLY if
decision is(a)his/her

given freely after that person is informed of
(i)
(ii)
(iii)

the nature,
the implications, andthe risksof the trial; and(b)

has either:(i)provided evidence of their written consent,
dated and signed, or(ii)
provided their consent orally in the presence ofat least one witnesse and recorded in writing.
WHEREAS, paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 1 of the Medicines for Human Use (Clinical
Trials) Regulations 2004 provides the definition of "informed consent" as follows:"3.—(1)For the purposes of this Schedule, a person gives informed
consent to take part, or that a subject is to take part, in aclinical trial only if his decision—(a)
is given freely after that person is informed of the nature,significance, implications and risks of the trial; and(b)either—(i)
is evidenced in writing, dated and signed, or otherwise
marked, by that person so as to indicate his consent, or
(ii)

(2)

if the person is unable to sign or to mark a document
so as to indicate his consent, is given orally in thepresence of at least one witness and recorded inwriting.

For the purposes of this Schedule, references to informed consent—(a)shall be construed in accordance with paragraph (1); and(b)include references to informed consent given or refused by an
adult unable by virtue of physical or mental incapacity to giveinformed consent, prior to the onset of that incapacity."

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2004/1031/schedule/1/made ; andThe legal statutory duty to conduct clinical trials in accordance with "Good Clinical
Practice and Protection of Clinical Trial Subjects" - section 28 of Part 4 of Schedule 1 of
the Medicines for Human Use (Clinical Trials) Regulations 2004.
WHEREAS, Section 28, entitled "Good clinical practice and protection of clinical trial
subjects" states:"Good clinical practice and protection of clinical trial subjects
28.—(1) No person shall—(a)conduct a clinical trial; or(b)perform the functions of the sponsor of a clinical trial(whether that person is the sponsor or is acting underarrangements made with that sponsor),otherwise than inaccordance with the conditions and principles ofgood clinical practice.

(2)

Subject to paragraph (5), the sponsor of a clinical trial shall put
and keep in place arrangements for the purpose of ensuring thatwith regard to that trial the conditions and principles of goodclinical practice are satisfied or adhered to." (emphasis added)- https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2004/1031/part/4/made; andWHEREAS, Part 2 of Schedule 1 of the Medicines for Human Use (Clinical Trials)
Regulations 2004 engages the conditions and principles which apply to all clinical trials,
including ethics requirements for an ethics committee, as set out in the Declaration of Helsinki[1964]
https://www.wma.net/what-we-do/medical-ethics/declaration-of-helsinki/dohjun1964/- for all subjects participating in clinical trials as follows:"PART 2
CONDITIONS AND PRINCIPLES WHICH APPLY TO ALL CLINICAL TRIALS
Principles based on International Conference on Harmonisation GCP
https://ichgcp.net/
1.
Clinical trials shall be conducted in accordance with the
ethical principles that have their origin in the Declaration of
Helsinki, and that are consistent with good clinical practiceand the requirements of these Regulations.

Guideline -2.
Before the trial is initiated, foreseeable risks andinconveniences have been weighed against the anticipatedbenefit for the individual trial subject and other present andfuture patients.
A trial should be initiated and continued only if the
anticipated benefits justify the risks.
3.
The rights, safety, and well-being of the trial subjects are
the most important considerations and shall prevail overinterests of science and society .
4.
The available non-clinical and clinical information on an
investigational medicinal product shall be adequate to support
clinical trial.

the5.
Clinical trials shall be scientifically sound, and described in aclear, detailed protocol.
6.
A trial shall be conducted in compliance with the protocolthat has a favourable opinion from an ethics committee.
7.
The medical care given to, and medical decisions made on
behalf of, subjects shall always be the responsibility of an
appropriately qualified doctor or, when appropriate, of aqualified dentist.
8.
Each individual involved in conducting a trial shall be
qualified by education, training, and experience to performor her respective task(s).
9.
Subject to the other provisions of this Schedule relating toconsent, freely given informed consent shall be obtained
every subject prior to clinical trial participation.

his

from

10.

All clinical trial information shall be recorded, handled, andstored in a way that allows its accurate reporting, interpretationand verification.
11.
The confidentiality of records that could identify subjects shallbe protected, respecting the privacy and confidentiality rules
accordance with the requirements of the Data Protection
and the law relating to confidentiality.
12. Investigational medicinal products used in the trial shall be—(a)manufactured or imported, and handled and stored, in
accordance with the principles and guidelines of good
manufacturing practice, and

Act

in
1998

(b)
13.

used in accordance with the approved protocol.

Systems with procedures that assure the quality of every aspect of
the trial shall be implemented." (emphasis added)

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2004/1031/schedule/1/made; andLegal statutory duties in relation to conditions and principles which apply in relation toa Minor participating in a clinical trial and to obtain Parental Consent for a Child under
16 years old WHEREAS, Part 4 of Schedule 1 of the Medicines for Human Use (Clinical Trials)
Regulations 2004 which sets the minimum of providing a more exacting test of informed
consent for minors, which must apply to emergency approval treatments that have notcompleted clinical trials, and sets the minimum of requiring parental consent for a minor
aged under 16 - in accordance with "Good clinical practice" - see Condition number 4 inPart 4 of the 2004 Regulations (below). ; andWHEREAS, under Schedule 1, Part 4 of the Medicines for Human Use (Clinical Trials)
Regulations 2004, it states, inter alia:"PART 4
CONDITIONS AND PRINCIPLES WHICH APPLY IN RELATION TO A
MINORConditions
1.
Subject to paragraph 6, a person with parental responsibility
for the minor or, if by reason of the emergency nature of thetreatment provided as part of the trial no such person can becontacted prior to the proposed inclusion of the subject in thetrial, a legal representative for the minor has had an interview
with the investigator, or another member of the investigating
team, in which he has been given the opportunity tounderstand the objectives, risks and inconveniences of thetrial and the conditions under which it is to be conducted.
2.
That person or legal representative has been provided with acontact point where he may obtain further information about
trial.
3.
That person or legal representative has been informed of theright to withdraw the minor from the trial at any time.
4.
That person or legal representative has given his informed
consent to the minor taking part in the trial.
5.
That person with parental responsibility or the legal
representative may, without the minor being subject to anytheresulting detriment, withdraw the minor from the trial at any
time by revoking his informed consent.
6.
The minor has received information according to his
capacity of understanding, from staff with experience withminors, regarding the trial, its risks and its benefits.
7.
The explicit wish of a minor who is capable of forming an
opinion and assessing the information referred to in theprevious paragraph to refuse participation in, or to bewithdrawn from, the clinical trial at any time is considered byinvestigator.
8.

No incentives or financial inducements are given—(a)(b)

to the minor; orto a person with parental responsibility for that minor or, as
the case may be, the minor’s legal representative,
except provision for compensation in the event of injury or
loss.

9.

The clinical trial relates directly to a clinical condition from which theminor suffers or is of such a nature that it can only be carried out on
minors.

10.

Some direct benefit for the group of patients involved in the clinical
trial is to be obtained from that trial.

11.

The clinical trial is necessary to validate data obtained—
(a)
(b)

12.

in other clinical trials involving persons able to give informed
consent, orby other research methods.

The corresponding scientific guidelines of the European Medicines
Agency are followed.

Principles
13.

Informed consent given by a person with parental responsibility or alegal representative to a minor taking part in a clinical trial shallrepresent the minor’s presumed will.

14.

The clinical trial has been designed to minimise pain, discomfort, fear
and any other foreseeable risk in relation to the disease and theminor’s stage of development.

15.
The risk threshold and the degree of distress have to be speciallydefined and constantly monitored.

the

16.

The interests of the patient always prevail over those of science andsociety. (emphasis added).

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2004/1031/schedule/1/made; andWHEREAS, no other person such as a family member, friend or carer and no organisation cangive or refuse consent to a health or social care service on behalf of an individual living man,woman or child who lacks capacity to consent unless they have specific legal authority to dosohttps://www.hse.ie/eng/about/who/qid/other-quality-improvementprogrammes/consent/national-consent-policy-hse-v1-3-june-2019.pdf; andLegal statutory definition of "Parental Responsibility"
WHEREAS, “parental responsibility" is defined in PART 1 of Schedule 1 of the Medicines for
Human Use (Clinical Trials) Regulations 2004 as follows:"(a)in relation to England and Wales, has the same meaning as in theChildren Act 1989,(b)in relation to Scotland, has the same meaning as in the Children(Scotland) Act 1985, and(c)in relation to Northern Ireland, has the same meaning as in theChildren (Northern Ireland) Order 1995"

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2004/1031/schedule/1/made; andWHEREAS, the legal statutory definition of "parental responsibility" is defined in section 3of the Children Act 1989, which states:"3

Meaning of “parental responsibility”.
(1)

In this Act “parental responsibility” means all therights, duties, powers, responsibilities and authority
which by law a parent of a child has in relation to thechild and his property.
(2)

It also includes the rights, powers and duties which a
guardian of the child’s estate (appointed, before thecommencement of section 5, to act generally) would
have had in relation to the child and his property.
(3)
The rights referred to in subsection (2) include, inparticular, the right of the guardian to receive or recoverin his own name, for the benefit of the child, property ofwhatever description and wherever situated which thechild is entitled to receive or recover.
(4)

The fact that a person has, or does not have, parental

responsibility for a child shall not affect—(a)any obligation which he may have in relation to thechild (such as a statutory duty to maintain the child);
or
(b)

(5)

any rights which, in the event of the child’s death, he(or any other person) may have in relation to thechild’s property.

A person who—(a)does not have parental responsibility for a particularchild; but(b)

has care of the child, may (subject to the provisions of
this Act) do what is reasonable in all the circumstancesof the case for the purpose of safeguarding or
promoting the child’s welfare."https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1989/41/section/3; andCompetence and Capacity to provide Informed Consent
WHEREAS, consent to medical treatment or to participation in a live human experimentcannot be provided by a living man, woman or child who lacks the competence or thecapacity to provide their informed consent, freely given to such medical treatment or
participation in a live human experiment.; andWHEREAS, capacity and competency of an adult or child to consent to or refuse medical
treatment is decision-specific, child-specific and made on the specific factual context in
mind, and based on the available evidence.; andWHEREAS, the law in the UK, states that a "minor" is a child under the age of 18 for the
purposes of capacity to consent to or to refuse medical treatment. A "minor" is deemed to lackthe capacity to consent to or refuse medical treatment unless the child is found to be "Gillick
competent" in accordance with the "Fraser Guidelines" set out in the UK case of Gillick v West
Norfolk and Wisbech Health Authority [1986]
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5a8ff8c960d03e7f57ecd66a; andWHEREAS, a child's competence and capacity to consent MUST be formally assessed
PRIOR to the medical treatment and PRIOR to their participation in a live human experimentas required by the law - see the UK case law of the House of Lords in the case of Gillick v
West Norfolk and Wisbech AHA (1986). This test for a child's competence to consent tomedical treatment is known as "Gillick competence" after the case of Gillick cited.
- https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5a8ff8c960d03e7f57ecd66a; andWHEREAS, the General Medical Council (the "GMC"), and Department of Health and Social
Care (the "DHSC") provide guidance on informed consent. The government's Green Book on

vaccination opines that Gillick Competency is not automatic. It states in Chapter 2 that
"Where immunisations are routinely offered in the school setting, consent
differs
depending on the age and competence of theindividual child or young person."; andLegal requirement for authorisation and ethics committee opinion
WHEREAS, under Part 3 of the Medicines for Human Use (Clinical Trials) Regulations 2004,
it states, inter alia:"Requirement for authorisation and ethics committee opinion
12.— (1) No person shall—(a)(b)

start a clinical trial or cause a clinical trial to be started; orconduct a clinical trial, unless the conditions specified inparagraph (3) are satisfied.

(2) No person shall—(a)(b)

recruit an individual to be a subject in a trial;
issue an advertisement for the purpose of recruiting
individuals to be subjects in a trial, unless the condition
specified in paragraph (3)(a) has been satisfied.

(3)

The conditions referred to in paragraphs (1) and (2) are—(a)an ethics committee or an appeal panel appointed under
Schedule 4 has given a favourable opinion in relation to theclinical trial; and(b)the clinical trial has been authorised by the licensing
authority." (emphasis added)- https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2004/1031/part/3/made; andLegal requirement for "urgent safety measures" to be taken to protect the subjects of aclinical trial against any "immediate hazard to their health or safety".
WHEREAS, section 30 of PART 4 of Schedule 1 of the Medicines for Human Use (Clinical
Trials) Regulations 2004 entitled "Urgent safety measures" states that:"30.—(1)The sponsor and investigator may take appropriate urgent
safety measures in order to protect the subjects of a clinical
trial against any immediate hazard to their health or safety.
(emphasis added)(2)

If measures are taken pursuant to paragraph (1), the sponsor
shall immediately, and in any event no later than 3 days fromthe date the measures are taken, give written notice to thelicensing authority and the relevant ethics committee of themeasures taken and the circumstances giving rise to thosemeasures."https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2004/1031/part/4/made; ; andLegal requirement to notify/report any "serious adverse event" which occurs in a subject
at a trial site.
WHEREAS, PART 5 of Schedule 1 of the Medicines for Human Use (Clinical Trials)
Regulations 2004 entitled "PHARMACOVIGILANCE", section 32 requires reporting any"serious adverse event" as stated:"Notification of adverse events
32.—(1)(2)

An investigator shall report any serious adverse event which
occurs in a subject at a trial site at which he is responsible forthe conduct of a clinical trial immediately to the sponsor.
An immediate report under paragraph (1) may be made orally
or in writing.

(3)

Following the immediate report of a serious adverse event,the investigator shall make a detailed written report on theevent."
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2004/1031/part/5/made; andLegal requirement to record and notify/report "suspected unexpected serious adverse
reactions" which is "fatal or life-threatening"
WHEREAS, PART 5 of Schedule 1 of the Medicines for Human Use (Clinical Trials)
Regulations 2004 entitled "PHARMACOVIGILANCE", section 33 requires "Notification ofsuspected unexpected serious adverse reactions" as stated:"Notification of suspected unexpected serious adverse reactions"33.—(1)

A sponsor shall ensure that all relevant information about asuspected unexpected serious adverse reaction which occurs
during the course of a clinical trial in the United Kingdom andis fatal or life-threatening is—(a)recorded; and(b)reported as soon as possible to—(i)the licensing authority,(ii)
the competent authorities of any EEA State,other than the United Kingdom, in which thetrial is being conducted, and(iii)
the relevant ethics committee, and in any event
not later that 7 days after the sponsor was firstaware of the reaction." (emphasis added)
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2004/1031/part/5/made; andAllegation that the informed consent laws and processes are not being followed in the UK
WHEREAS, it appears that there is an agenda to avoid true informed and voluntary consent
in breach of UK case law, including but not limited to the UK Supreme Court Judgment in theleading case on the law relating to informed consent for medical treatment in the UK Montgomery v Lancashire Health Board (2015). The Supreme Court Judgment held that anindividual cannot provide their fully informed consent to being medically treated if they are
fully informed of the "material risks" of the treatment. If they are not fully informed of thesematerial risks prior to providing their consent to treatment, their informed consent has not been
given for treatment and any such treatment provided without fully informed consent isunlawful, illegal, immoral and unethical and, as such, vitiates a patient's consent resulting in
the tort of battery and trespass to the person and a criminal act of harm against the person (seebelow) - https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2013-0136.html; andWHEREAS, the GMC Factsheet entitled "Key legislation and case law relating to decision
making and consent states the following in relation to the UK Supreme Court case ofMontgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board [2015]stating, inter alia:"The Supreme Court held the following.
1.
An adult with capacity is entitled to decide which, if any, of theavailable forms of treatment to undergo.
2.
Doctors are under a duty to take reasonable care to make surethat the patient is aware of any material risks involved in any
recommended treatment, and of any reasonable alternative or
variant treatments.
3.
The test for materiality was whether, in the circumstances, areasonable person in the patient’s position would be likely to
attach significance to the risk, or the doctor was or should havebeen reasonably aware that the particular patient would be likely
attach significance to it.
4.
A doctor’s advisory role involves making sure that the patientunderstands the seriousness of their condition, and theanticipated benefits and risks of the proposed treatment andreasonable alternatives, so that they can make andecision.
5.
Doctors are entitled to withhold information about risk from apatient if they reasonably consider that its disclosure would beseriously detrimental to the patient’s health. This is a limited
exception and doctors must not withhold information because
they think it might cause the patient to opt for treatment that thedoctor does not consider is in the patient’s best interests."

toanyinformedhttps://www.gmc-uk.org/-/media/documents/factsheet---key-legislation-and-case-lawrelating-to-decision-making-and-consent-84176182.pdf; andWHEREAS, the GMC Factsheet entitled "Key legislation and case law relating to decision
making and consent states the following in relation to the UK case of Thefaut v Johnston [2017]
EWHC 497 (QB), inter alia:"The duty to give patients accurate information and adequate time
to make decisions

and space

The High Court held the following.
-

The informed consent process fell below the required
standard, as Mrs Thefaut was presented with informationthat understated the risks, overstated the chances ofsuccess, and did not set out the option of not having
surgery.
A patient should be given ‘adequate time and space’ inwhich to make decisions.
A doctor’s advisory role includes the need to remove or
minimise jargon, so that the information given to patientsis clear and can be understood."
https://www.gmc-uk.org/-/media/documents/factsheet---key-legislation-and-case-lawrelating-to-decision-making-and-consent-84176182.pdf
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2017/497.html; andWHEREAS, in relation to Hospital consent forms, in the Judgment of the UK case of Thefautv Johnston [2017] EWHC 497 (QB), the court stated at para [70] :"70. Hospital consent forms: It is accepted that the simple fact thatMrs Thefaut signed the hospital consent form is not to be takenasan indication of acceptance of risk. In my view the document
is of no realsignificance on the present facts. (It would havegreatersignificance in emergency cases involving no priorcontact between
patient and clinician)."https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2017/497.html#para70; andWHEREAS, in relation to the "sufficiency" of the discussion on risks and the place andoccasion on which the individual is warned of the risks of the medical treatment or procedure,in the Judgment of the UK case of Thefaut v Johnston [2017] EWHC 497 (QB), the court
stated at para [78], inter alia:"78. It is also accepted that the brief discussion between Mr
Johnston and Mrs Thefaut on 17th May 2012 immediately priortosurgery was not, by itself, sufficient to warn Mrs Thefaut of
the risksandbenefits. I would make one general observations
about this. It is routine fora surgeon immediately prior tosurgery to see the patient and toensure that they remain

wedded to the procedure.

But this is neither the place nor the occasion for a surgeon for
the first time to explain to a patient undergoing elective surgery
therelevant risks and benefits. At this point, on the very cusp oftheprocedure itself, the surgeon is likely to be underconsiderable pressure of time (to see all patients on the list andgetto surgery) and the patient is psychologically committed togoingahead.
There is a mutual momentum towards surgery
which is hard tohalt. There is no "adequate time and space" fora sensible dialogue tooccur and for free choice to be
exercised."https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2017/497.html#para78; andWHEREAS, in the Judgment of the UK case of Thefaut v Johnston [2017]EWHC 497 (QB),, the court stated at paras [79] to [82] , inter alia:"79. In my judgment a reasonable patient with the same symptoms
as Mrs Thefaut, being fully and properly advised, would have
either rejected the option of surgery altogether or at least
deferred the option until she had received a second opinion.
This is for the following reasons.
80.
First, it is important to place the advice about the risks andbenefits of surgery into the context of the advice given as
to recovery
absent the procedure. As to this the hypotheticalpatient is, in substance,
deciding upon surgery as a means ofachieving accelerated pain relief. Absent
the surgery a fullrecovery and a dimming of the pain over time isexpected. The
counterfactual is hence one where the patient is measuring therisks of surgery and the chances of rapid pain relief against analternative of a steady reduction in pain ending in full recovery ina period where the outer limit is about 12 months.
For this reason, logically, any increase in the risks of surgery
and/or a reduction in the prospect of pain reduction assume anenhanced significance. Any worsening of the odds in relation toeither or both of those two matters makes it intrinsically lesslikely that a reasonable patient would opt for surgery and more
likely that he/she would either elect to avoid surgery or at thevery least seek a second opinion.
81.
Second, it is also important to take into account precisely
which of the risks and benefits in practical terms meant
most in practice to the patient.
My prima facie conclusion is that a reasonable patient with Mrs
Thefaut's condition would have declined surgery or at least
deferred it pending a second opinion."
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2017/497.html#para79; andWHEREAS, as Laws LJ said in Rahman -v- Arearose Limited [2001] CA 351 at 366G:'... it does not seem to me to be established as a rule of law that later
negligencealways extinguishes the causative potency of an earlier
tort. Nor should it be.
The law is that every tortfeasor should compensate the injured
claimant in respectof that loss and damage for which he should justly be held responsible.'https://www.brownejacobson.com/insurance/training-and-resources/legalupdates/2000/06/rahman-v-arearose-ltd-and-another; andWHEREAS, the UK House of Lords case of Bolitho v. City and Hackney Health Authority[1997] UKHL 46; [1998] AC 232; [1997] 4 All ER 771; [1997] 3 WLR 1151 (13th November,1997) addresses two questions relating to the issue of liability for medical negligence: causationand professional negligence. Lord Browne-Wilkinson in the Judgment states, inter alia:"My Lords,
This appeal raises two questions relating to liability for medical

negligence.

The first, which I believe to be more apparent than real, relates to thecausation when the negligent act is one of omission.

proof

of

The second concerns the approach to professional negligence laid down in Bolam v.
Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1 W.L.R. 583.
The Bolam test and causation
The locus classicus of the test for the standard of care required of a
doctor or
any other person professing some skill or competence is the
direction to the jury given
by McNair J. in Bolam v. Friern HospitalManagement Committee [1957] 1 W.L.R. 583,
587:
"I myself would prefer to put it this way, that he is not guilty ofnegligence if he has acted in accordance with a practiceaccepted as proper by a responsible body of medical men
skilled in that particular art . . .
Putting it the other way round, a
man is not negligent, if he isacting in accordance with such apractice, merely because there
is a body of opinion who would take a contrary view." "https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1997/46.html
https://ipsaloquitur.com/tort-law/cases/bolam-v-friern-hospital/; andWHEREAS, the GMC Factsheet entitled "Key legislation and case law relating to decision
making and consent" states the following in relation to the UK Supreme Court case of Re MB(Medical Treatment) [1997] 38 BMLR 175 CA, inter alia:"Factors that may affect a patient’s capacity to refuse treatment

MB needed a caesarean section but withdrew consent at the lastof her phobia of
needles.

momentbecauseThe Court of Appeal held the following.
An individual’s capacity to make particular decisions may
be temporarily affected by factors such as fear,
confusion, shock, fatigue, pain or drugs. Doctors must be
satisfied that such factors are operating to such a degree
the individual is unable to make the decision. "https://www.gmc-uk.org/-/media/documents/factsheet---key-legislation-and-case-lawrelating-to-decision-making-and-consent-84176182.pdf andhttps://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1997/3093.html; andthat

WHEREAS, in the UK Supreme Court case of Re MB (Medical Treatment) [1997] 38 BMLR
175 CA, Lady Justice Butler-Sloss states at para [17] of the Judgment:"General Principles
We start by setting out the basic principles which underpin the properto the issues raised on this appeal.

approach(1).

Subject to (3) below, in general it is a criminal and tortious
assault to perform physically invasive medical treatment,
however minimal the invasion might be, without the patient`s
consent, see Collins v Wilcox [1984] 1 WLR 1172 per Goff LJ at
page 1177, cited with approval in Re F (Mental Patient:
Sterilisation) [1990] 2 AC 1.
(2).
A mentally competent patient has an absolute right to refuse toconsent to medical treatment for any reason, rational or
irrational, or for no reason at all, even where that decision may
lead to his or her own death, see Sidaway v Board of Governorsofthe Bethlem Royal Hospital [1985] AC 871 per Lord
Templemanat pages 904-905; see also Re T (An Adult)(Consent to Medical
Treatment) [1993] Fam 95 per Lord
Donaldson MR at page 102.
(3).
Medical treatment can be undertaken in an emergency even if,
through a lack of capacity, no consent had been competently
given, provided the treatment was a necessity and did no morethan was reasonably required in the best interests of the patient:
F (supra)."https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1997/3093.html
https://ipsaloquitur.com/criminal-law/cases/collins-v-wilcock/; andRe
andWHEREAS, in the UK case of Collins v Wilcock 1984] 1 WLR 1172 per Goff LJ at page
1177,Goff LJ set out the general definition for assault and battery:"An assault is an act which causes another person to apprehend the infliction of
immediate, unlawful, force on his person; abattery is the actual infliction of
unlawful force on another person."https://ipsaloquitur.com/criminal-law/cases/collins-v-wilcock/; ; andWHEREAS, section 20 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 states:"Inflicting bodily injury, with or without weapon.
Whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously wound or inflict any
grievous
bodily harm upon any other person, either with orwithout any weapon
or
instrument, shall be guilty of amisdemeanour, and being convicted thereof shall be
liable . . . to be kept in penal servitude ."https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/24-25/100/section/20; andWHEREAS, the Crown Prosecution Service (the "CPS") states the following in relation to
Common Assault contained in section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, as follows:" s.39 Criminal Justice Act 1988:
An assault is any act (and not mere omission to act) by which a person
intentionally or recklessly causes another to suffer or apprehend immediate
unlawful violence.
The term assault is often used to include a battery, which is committed bytheintentional or reckless application of unlawful force to another person. Where there is abattery, the defendant should be charged with ‘assault by beating’: DPP v Little [1992] QB
645.
Provided there has been an intentional or reckless application of unlawfulforce the offence will have been committed, however slight the force.
Assault, as distinct from battery, can be committed by an act indicating an
intention to use unlawful violence against the person of another – for example,
an aimed punch that fails to connect. In Misalati [2017] EWCA 2226
the appellant spat
towards the complainant. The appeal court confirmedthat although there was no
actual violence, spitting is an assault whether itmakes contact with the victim or causes
fear of immediate unlawful physical contact."(emphasis added)
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/offences-against-person-incorporating-chargingstandard and https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/33/section/39; andWHEREAS, s39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 states:"Common assault and battery to be summary offences.

Common assault and battery shall be summary offences and aperson guilty ofeither of them shall be liable to a fine not exceedinglevel 5 on the standard scale, to
imprisonment for a term notexceeding six months, or to both."
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/33/section/39; andWHEREAS, the CPS guidance on Assault states, inter alia:"Common assault is a summary offence. However, if the requirements of section
40 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 are met it can be included
as a count on anindictment."
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/offences-against-person-incorporating-chargingstandard ; andWHEREAS, section 40 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 states:"40

Power to join in indictment count for common assault etc.

(1)
A count charging a person with a summary offence towhich this section applies may be included in an
indictment if the charge—(a)is founded on the same facts or evidence as a countcharging an indictable offence; or(b)
is part of a series of offences of the same or similar
character as an indictable offence which is also
charged, but only if (in either case) the facts orevidence relating to the offence are disclosed bymaterial which, in pursuance of regulations madeunder paragraph 1 of Schedule 3 to the Crime andDisorder Act 1998 (procedure where person sent fortrial under section 51 [F3or 51A]), has been served on
the person charged].
(2)

Where a count charging an offence to which this section
applies is included in an indictment, the offence shall be triedin the same manner as if it were an indictable offence; but the
Crown Court may only deal with the offender in respect of it ina manner in which a magistrates’ court could have dealt with
him.

(3)

The offences to which this section applies are—(a)common assault; "https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/33/section/40; andWHEREAS, the CPS guidance on Assault states, inter alia:"An element of the offence of common assault is lack of consent so that theprosecution may (where it is a live issue) have to establish that the offence
wascommitted without consent. However, a lack of consent can be inferred fromevidenceother than the direct evidence of the victim – CPS v Shabbir[2009]
EWHC
2754(Admin). "(emphasis added)
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/offences-against-person-incorporating-chargingstandard ; https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2009/2754.html ; andWHEREAS, CPS guidance on Assault states the following in relation to section 47 - Assault
occasioning Actual Bodily Harm (ABH) of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 , interalia:"Assault occasioning Actual Bodily Harm (ABH) – s.47 OAPA 1861
The offence is committed when a person intentionally or recklessly assaults
another, thereby causing Actual Bodily Harm. It must be proved that the assault(which includes “battery”) “occasioned” or caused the bodily harm.
Bodily harm has its ordinary meaning and includes any hurt calculated to interferewith the health or comfort of the victim: such hurt need not be permanent, but must be
more than transient and trifling: (R v Donovan [1934] 2
KB 498).
The House of Lords in DPP v Parmenter [1992] 1 AC 699 held that the mens rea of
this offence is the same as that for battery; all that need be proved further isthat actual
bodily harm in fact followed."
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/offences-against-person-incorporating-chargingstandard ; andWHEREAS, section 47 - Assault occasioning bodily harm - of the Offences Against the Person
Act 1861 states:"47

Assault occasioning bodily harm.

Whosoever shall be convicted upon an indictment of any
assault occasioning actual bodily harm shall be liable . . to be
kept in penal servitude."https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/24-25/100/section/47; andWHEREAS, in the Law Commission's Consultation paper No 134 entitled "Criminal Law CONSENT AND OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - A Consultation Paper", the Law
Commissioners state, inter alia:
1.1.

In the course of preparing our recent report on Offences against the Person[Legislating the Crimina1 Code: Offences against the Person and General Principles,
Law Com No 218, November 1993: hereafter "Law Com No 218"] we had to consider theeffect of the consent of the victim on liability for the
infliction of physical hurt or injury

1.2
That law has two, distinct, features. (The clearest and most authoritative source forthis statement, before the very recent judgments in the House of Lords in Brown [1993] 2
WLR 556, is the judgment delivered by Lord Lane CJ
inAttorney-General'sReference (No 6 of 1980) [I9811 QB 715, in particular
at p 719C-F.)
First, in the case of assault, but not of more serious offences against the person, no
offence is committed if the victim consented to what was done, and the act done was notintended or likely to cause actual bodily harm.
That is a matter of common law; but we
felt able to express this generalrule in clause 6(1) of the Criminal Law Bill that forms
part of Law Com No 218 in these terms:[Definition of the offence of assault]
A person is guilty of the offence of assault if(a)he intentionally or recklessly applies force to or causes animpact on the body of another(i)without the consent of the other, or(ii)
where the act is intended or likely to cause injury, with orwithout the consent of the other.
(This formulation was cited with approval, as a statement of the present law,
Lord Lowry in Brown [1993] 2 WLR 556 at p 578B-C. )

by

1.3.

.....There are certain situations in which conduct that would normally be an
assault under the above rubric, or a more serious offence, is not criminal because of
the circumstances in which it takes place. These exceptions from the general rule of liability
were summarised in Attorney-General'sReference (No 6 of 1980) as follows:"Nothing which we have said is intended to cast doubt upon theaccepted legality of properly conducted games and sports, lawful
chastisement or correction, reasonable surgical interference,
dangerous exhibitions, etc.
These apparent exceptions can be justified as involving the exercise ofa legal right, in the case of chastisement or correction, or as needed in
the public interest, in the other cases." ([1981] QB 715 at p 719D-E.).
The present law
4.2
The terms of the general rule were before Brown [1993] 2 WLR 556,and intheevent still are, clear: that, outside the special categories, a person cannot effectively consent
to the intended or actual infliction on him of "actual
bodily harm" or, in the more
modern language that we adopt in Law Com No
218, injury.
5.1.

The main authorities in the field before Brown were Coney [(1882) 8 QBD 534] ;Donovan [Donovan [1934] 2 KB 498] ; and Attorney General's Reference (No 6 of

1980).[1981] QB 715]
[The case of Coney [1882) 8 QBD 534]
5.2. Coney...The actual issue in the case was the liability of a number ofat a prize-fight for common assault, on the basis that they were secondary
as aiders and abettors of whatever offence was inherent in the fight.

spectators
participants,

5.3. It was held by all eleven judges that prize-fights were illegal, and thatthe interchange of blows during the fight did not afford any
answercriminal charge of assault.

consent tototheMatthew J:"no consent can render that innocent which is in fact dangerous .."Stephen J:"When one person is indicted for inflicting personal injury upon another, theconsent of the person who sustains the injury is no defence to the person
who inflicts the injury, if the injury is of such a nature, or is inflicted undersuch circumstances, that its infliction is injurious to the public, as well as totheperson injured....but in all cases the question whether consent does ordoes not take fromthe application of force to another its illegal character, is a question of degree depending
upon circumstances."
Hawkins J:"As a general proposition it is undoubtedly true that there can be no assault
unless the act charged as such be done without consent ... for want ofconsent isan essential element in every assault ... . it is not in the power of any man to give aneffectual consent to that which amounts to, or has adirect tendency to create, abreach of the peace; so as to bar a criminal prosecution."
5.4

It is possible to reconstruct out of these and other observations the
proposition that even in respect of a charge of common assault the consent
ofthe victim is no defence if the acts of the assaulter are dangerous, in thesense ofbeing likely or intended to cause harm. .....On this view, because oftheinherently
unlawful nature of prize-fighting all the participants, and spectators,
wereactingunlawfully, and therefore no consent to any injury could be effective in law.
[The case of Donovan [1934] 2 KB 498.]
5.5.

Donovan [1934] 2 KB 498.].....The Court of Criminal Appeal ....The question
should have first been put to the jury of whether the blows struck were likelyorintended to do bodily harm. The Court continued :"If an act is unlawful in the sense of being in itself a criminal act, it isplain that it cannot be rendered lawful because the person to whose
detriment it is done consents to it.
No person can license another to commit a crime.
So far as the criminal law is concerned, therefore, where the act
charged is in itself unlawful, it can never be necessary to proveabsence of consent."(emphasis added)
5.6 ... the ratio is clear enough: as a general rule, it is not possible to consent to the
infliction, or the likelihood, of bodily harm.
5.7

The judgment in Donovan recognised the existence of various exceptions tothat general rule that an act likely or intended to cause bodily harm is an unlawful

act..
[The case of Attorney-General's Reference (no. 6 of 1980)][1981] QB 715]
5.8
Attorney-General's Reference (no. 6 of 1980). It was held in this case, the main
authority before Brown, that where two persons fight (otherwise thanin the course ofproperly conducted games and sports) intending or causing
actual bodily harm, it is
not a defence for one of those persons to a charge ofassault arising out the fight thatthe other consented to the fight, whether the fight occurs in private or in public. It was notin the public interest thatpeople should try to cause or should cause each other actual
bodily harm forno good reason. Lord Lane cl's succinct restatement of these principles
deserves fairly full citation:"We think that it can be taken as a starting point that it is an essential
element of an assault that the act is done contrary to the will andwithout the consent of the victim; and it is doubtless for this reason
that the burden lies on the prosecution to negative consent.
Ordinarily, then, if the victim consents, the assailant is not guilty.
But the cases show that the courts will make an exception to thisprinciple where the public interest requires.. . starting with theproposition that ordinarily an act consented to will not constitute an
assault, the question is: at what point does the public interest
require the court to hold otherwise?
...
The answer to this question, in our judgment, is that it is not in the
public interest that people should try to cause, or should cause, eachother actual bodily harm for no good reason ... .
Nothing which we have said is intended to cast doubt on the acceptedlegality of properly conducted games and sports, lawful chastisement
or correction, reasonable surgical interference, dangerous exhibitions,
etc.
These apparent exceptions can be justified as involving the exercise ofa legal right, in the case of chastisement or correction, or as needed in
the public interest, in the other cases."
5.9
The basic proposition established by Attorney-General's Reference (No 6 of I980),
was therefore that where an action was intended or
likely to cause injury, consent
was no defence unless there was a good reason to allow consent to the activity inquestion.
6.6
We therefore now set out the various considerations relied on in Brown
by step manner by which the majority of the judges approach the question.

in the step-(i) A line can be drawn above which consent is no defence
7.1
The first stage in this analysis is to accept that whilst consent is a defence
tocommon assault, consent will not provide a defence in all cases. It is widely recognisedthat consent to being killed isineffective and, below this, a line must be drawn
somewhere along the continuum from minor touching to death. Above this line consent willordinarily not be a defence. This form of analysis was clearly adopted
by Lords
Jauncey, Lowry and Slynn.
Lord Jauncey:"All the appellants recognised.. . that there must be some
limitation upon the harm which an individual could consent
receive at the hand of another. The line between injuries toinfliction of which an individual could consent and injuries toinfliction he could not consent must be drawn it wasargued where the public interest required." (at p 567C-E.)

to
the
whose

Lord Lowry:"Everyone agrees that consent remains a complete defence to acharge of common assault and nearly everyone agrees thatconsent of the victim is not a defence to a charge ofinflicting really serious personal injury (or 'grievous bodily
harm'). The disagreement concerns offences which occasion
actual bodily harm.. . . "Lord Slynn:"Three propositions seem to me to be clear. It is 'inherent in
the conception of assault and battery that the victim does
consent' Glanville Williams 'Consent and Public Policy'
Crim LR 74, 75.

not[1962]

Secondly, consent must be full and free and must be as toactual level of force used or pain inflicted.

theThirdly, there exist areas where the law disregards thevictim's consent even where that consent is freely and fully
given. These areas may relate to the person (e.g. a child);they mayrelate tothe place (e.g. in public) ; they may
relatetothenature of the harm done. It is the latter which is
in issue in the present
case. I accept that consent cannot be
said simply to be a defence to any
act which one person does toanother.
A line has to be drawn as to what can and cannot be the subjectof consent."(ii) The line should be drawn at actual bodily harm
7.2. The majority, having recognised that such a line can be drawn, thenheld thatthe cut off point was to be actual bodily harm. They
therefore recognised that,' in theabsence of special circumstances,public policy dictates that consent will provide no
defence to charges
under section 47 or 20 [of the Offences against the Person Act 1861]
both these charges requiring at least actual bodily harm.
7.3
Lord Lowry gained support for this view from the structure of the 1861
as from the cases. ....he went on to consider the Act insome detail:Act as well

“I consider that [the Act of 1861] contains fairly clear signs that,with regard to the relevance of the victim’s consent as adefence, assault occasioning actual bodily harm andwounding which results in actual bodily harm are not‘offences below the line’, to be ranked with common assault as
offences in connection with which the victim’s consent
provides a defence, but offences ‘above the line’, to be
ranked with inflicting grievous bodily harm and the othermoreserious offences in connection with which thevictim’s consent
does not provide a defence."
Lord Lowry noted the following points about the structure of the [Offences against the Person]
Act:
1.
Section 18 offences were felonies, while section 47 and section
20 offences were misdemeanours. Therefore, section 20 was
associated with section 18 and separated from section 47 bycategorisation.
2.
Although section 47 appears to describe a less serious offence
than section 20, the maximum penalty was the same.
3.
The wounding in sections 18 and 20 may occasion actual
bodily harm or grievous bodily harm. Any rule based onserious bodily harm would, therefore, require the line to benotdrawn somewhere down the middle of section 20.
4.
Section 20 does not envisage the jury having to find out whether
anything more than actual bodily harm was occasioned
5.
That consent is a defence to a charge of common assault is acommon law doctrine which the Act of 1861 has done nothing tochange.
7.5
Lord Jauncey noted that in Donovan, Attorney-General’s Reference(No 6 of1980) and Boyea the infliction of actual bodily harm wasconsideredtobesufficient to negative any consent. Cave J in
Coney also appeared to take the sameview. On the other hand, Stephen J in
Coney appeared to consider that it required
serious danger to life andlimb to negative consent. As to that, Lord Jauncey concluded:"I prefer the reasoning of Cave J in Coney and of the Court ofAppeal in the later three English cases which I consider to havebeen correctly decided. In my view the line falls properly to be
drawn between assault at common law and the offence ofassault
occasioning actual bodily harm created by section
47 of the
Offences
against the Person Act 1861, with theresult that consent of the victim is
no answer to anyone
charged with the latter offence or with acontravention ofsection 20 unless the circumstances fall within one ofthewell known exceptions such as organised sporting
contests or games, parental chastisement or reasonable
surgery... .
If consent is to answer a charge under section 47
but not one under section
20, considerable practical problems
would arise."(iii) The line should be drawn at serious bodily harm
7.9.

Apart from the limited reference to unlawfulness under otherprovisions,
therefore, the majority espoused as the basic rule that consent
providesno
defence for any action that is intended or likely to cause actual bodily harm. Lord Slynn,
however, differed from the majority on
the question of where that line should be drawn
above which consent will ordinarily provide no defence.
7.11 Lord Slynn concluded that it was possible to draw the line, and that theline should
be drawn between really serious injury on the one handandless serious injuries on theother. The range of injuries encompassed by actual bodily harm and wounding was wide,
andthere was no significant reason for refusing consent as a defence forthelesser of these cases." Accordingly:“My conclusion is on the basis of what I consider existing law to
be. I do not consider that it is necessary for the House in its
judicial capacity to give what is called ‘a new ruling’ based on
freedom of expression, public opinion, and the consequences ofnegative ruling on those whom it is said can only getsatisfaction through these acts... .
All these are essentially matters, in my view, to be balanced byathe legislature if it is thought to be necessary to consider the
making criminal of sado-masochistic acts per se."THE GENERAL EFFECT OF CONSENT
The question
13.1. There is no doubt that in the present law effective consent can be given tosomegeneral level of physical interference. Commonsense, and theneed to prevent thecriminal law making life in society impossible, indicate that such a rule should continue.
The present rule is that confirmed in
Brown, that consent provides no defence toany act that is intended
or likely to cause actual bodily harm or, in the more modern
language
adopted in the Criminal Law Bill in Law
Com No 218, that is intended or
likely to cause injury."(emphasis added)
http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/app/uploads/2016/08/No.134-Criminal-Law-Consent-andOffences-Against-the-Person-A-Consultation-Paper.pdf; andWHEREAS, the evidence in the UK is that the informed consent laws and processes are notbeing followed in that live human subjects/participants of this clinical trial are not being
informed of the fact that they are being inducted into a live human experiment in a clinical trialof the so-called COVID-19 Vaccinations, and other experimental PIs and NPIs; andWHEREAS, the UK population, including children, are not being informed of any healthbenefits of refusing the treatment being offered to them and or the risks, including material
risks of serious adverse events including death regarding the said so-called COVID-19 vaccines
which are in fact experimental, novel mRNA gene therapies/injections/medical devices and or
viral vector injections/vaccines (see below); andWHEREAS, given the large number of adverse events, including serious adverse events suchas death and serious disabilities, that have been reported after the administration of theexperimental, novel, so-called COVID-19 vaccines, in living men and women and tragically inchildren, babies and unborn babies, it is in the interests of all those authorising, sanctioning,
encouraging, enforcing, and/or administering the so-called COVID-19 vaccines to fully
understand the evidence regarding the risks of these mRNA, DNA genetherapies/vaccines/injections, since liability for harm, injury, suffering, loss and/or death fromthese medical interventions will fall directly on those who authorise, sanction, encourage,
enforce and/or administer these so-called COVID-19 vaccines. An individual who is not fully
informed of such risks, is not "informed" and therefore is not able to provide their informed
consent, thereby making any consent provided by them unlawful, illegal, immoral andunethical; andProviding misleading information is unlawful and could vitiate consent
WHEREAS, if the information provided to the individual to obtain consent is misleading, this
could vitiate consent as the individual has not been informed with accurate information.
"Misleading. If a complication is listed, but the risk level is not accurate, it could beconstrued as misleading. A patient may accept a risk ofinternal bleeding at less than 1%

but not if 10% of patients experience this complication. Major risks like brain damage, death,paralysis, and other life-changing complications should be outlined specifically, alongwith common complications."- UK Medical Freedom Alliance "Informed consent and Covid-19 vaccines https://www.ukmedfreedom.org/.; andProviding incomplete information is unlawful and could vitiate consent
WHEREAS, if the information provided to the individual is incomplete, this could vitiate
consent.
"Incomplete information. Sometimes risks or complications that havebut only rarely, are not listed on the consent form.

occurred,

If it can be proven that another physician would have disclosed therisk, butyour doctor did not tell you about it, and then the complication
occurred,, there may be apossibility to pursue a medical malpractice claim."- UK Medical Freedom Alliance "Informed consent and Covid-19 vaccines."; andWHEREAS, the UK Medical Freedom Alliance has provided the following information on
informed consent and other relevant information. The UK Medical Freedom Alliance is analliance of Doctors, scientists and lawyers. The following letters are in the public domain andyou should refer to them. The UK medical freedom alliance website also contains further open
letters that have been sent regarding the covid19 vaccines and expert analysis of the covid
vaccines for the information of patients, including, but not limited to the following letters:
1.
https://www.ukmedfreedom.org/open-letters/ukmfa-open-letter-to-gps-vaccinators-reobtaining-informed-consent-for-covid-19-vaccines; and2.

Vaccineconsent
form
https://uploadssl.webflow.com/5fa586942937a4d73918723/5ff46d3fa0a18f0c8e0cbc2_UKMFA_CV19_vaccine_consent_form_v3.pdf
3.
UK medical freedom alliance, Open letter to the JCVI re advice that
Covid19
vaccines should be offered to all pregnant women:
https://www.ukmedfreedom.org/open-letters/ukmfa-open-letter-to-the-jcvi-re-advicethat-covid-19-vaccines-should-be-offered-to-all-pregnant-women;
4.
UK MFA- Open letter re Vaccination Mandates by Employers for Employeesorpotential Employees:
https://uploadsssl.webflow.com/5fa5866942937a4d73918723/6034d75d99ca064068db36c5_UKMFA_L4L_
Workers_Union-Employers_Vaccine_Open_Letter.pdf; andThe function of the law is to enable rights to be vindicated and to provide remedies when
duties have been breached.
WHEREAS, in the UK case of Thefaut v Johnson [2017] EWHC 497 (QB) at para [63], theCourt cited the judgments of the House of Lords in the UK case of Chester v Ashfar [2004]

UKHL 41, stating, inter alia:"63. Finally, I would refer to the judgments of the House of Lords in
Chester(ibid) where the Judicial Committee held (by a majority)that where in breach of
duty a patient was not warned of a small
risk of damage, which damage theneventuated, and the patient
would otherwise have sought advice on alternatives andwould
not have undergone surgery at the time and in thecircumstances that she in fact underwent surgery, the surgeon
shouldnonetheless be regarded as having caused the entiretyof the damage. Lord Hopestated:"86. I start with the proposition that the law which imposed the
duty to warn on the doctor has at its heart the right of thepatient to make an informed choice as to whether, and ifsowhen and by whom, to be operated on. Patients may
have, andare entitled to have, different views about
these matters. Allsorts of factors may be at work here the patient's hopes andfears and personal
circumstances, the nature of thecondition that has to betreated and, above all, the patient's own
views about
whether the risk is worth running for the benefits
that maycome if the operation is carried out. For some the choice
may be easy - simply to agree to or to decline theoperation. But for many the choice will be a difficult one,requiring time to think, to take advice and to weigh up thealternatives. The duty is owed as much to the patient
who, if warned, would find the decision difficult as to thepatient who would find it simple and could give a clear
answer to the doctor one way or the other immediately.
87.
...The function of the law is to enable rights to bevindicated and to provide remedies when duties havebeen breached.
Unless this is done the duty is a hollow one, stripped of
all practical force and devoid of all content. It will havelost its ability to protect the patient and thus to fulfil the
only purpose which brought it into existence. On policy
grounds therefore I would hold that the test of causation
satisfied in this case.

is

The injury was intimately involved with the duty towarn."
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2017/497.html#para51 andhttps://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2004/41.html; andCivil and Criminal actions may proceed immediately for damages
WHEREAS, a breach of the informed consent laws, codes and ethics and a breach of the
Health & Safety laws, and a breach of the human rights laws and a breach of the criminal laws

may result in civil and or criminal proceedings being taken by the individual man, woman orchild, their families and or other interested parties (see below); andWHEREAS, therefore, administrative actions and/or civil actions and/or criminal actions may
proceed immediately for damages caused by your administration and/or instruction to others
to administer the NPI's and PI's including the face masks, tests and the so-called COVID-19
vaccines without having obtained the free, full, and informed consent from the living men,
women and child to whom the face masks, tests and the so-called COVID-19 vaccines havebeen, or are being, administered; andWHEREAS, offences committed in breach of the Medicines for Human Use (Clinical Trials)
Regulations 2004 are set out in PART 8 of the 2004 Regulations entitled "ENFORCEMENT
AND RELATED PROVISIONS". Under section 52 entitled "Penalties", it states:"52. A person guilty of an offence under these Regulations shall be
liable—(a)on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding the statutory
maximum or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding threemonths or to both;(b)on conviction on indictment to a fine or to imprisonment for aterm not exceeding two years or to both."

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2004/1031/part/8/made; andViolations of human rights
WHEREAS, administering, mandating, promoting and or encouraging experimental medical
and or PIs and/or NPIs without obtaining lawful fully informed consent from the individual,
freely given in accordance with International, European and UK laws and UK case law, is a
prima facie breach of fundamental, inalienable human rights, including, but not limited to thefollowing:
the right to life,
the right to bodily integrity,
the right not to be tortured, degraded or given inhumane
treatment andthe right to provide informed consent freely given in accordancewith the rule of law and medical ethics,
the right to privacy
the right to a family life
It is unlawful, illegal, immoral and unethical - see, inter alia, Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health
Board (2015) (above); andWHEREAS, violations of human rights not only contribute to and exacerbate poor health, but
for many (including children, individuals with disabilities and other vulnerable individuals) the
health care and education settings presents a risk of heightened exposure to human rights
abuses - including coercive or forced medical treatment and procedures, pharmaceutical andnon-pharmaceutical interventions - in breach of the Rule of Law; andInternational, European and UK Human Rights laws
WHEREAS, the international law regarding human rights is set out in a number ofInternational laws. The preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) (the"UDHR") states, inter alia:"WHEREAS recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal andinalienable
rights of all members of the human family is the foundationof freedom, justice andpeace in the world,
WHEREAS disregard and contempt for human rights haveresultedinbarbarous acts which have outraged the conscienceof mankind, and the advent of aworld in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech, and belief and freedom fromfear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common
purpose,WHEREAS, it is essential, if man is not compelled to haveresort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that humanprotected by the rule oflaw,

recourse, as a lastrights should be

WHEREAS, the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter affirmed their faithin fundamental human rights, in the dignity andworth of the human person and in theequal rights of men andwomen and have determined to promote social progress andbetter standards of life inlarger freedom,
WHEREAS Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in
operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal
respect
observance of human rights and fundamental
freedoms,
WHEREAS a common understanding of these rights andgreatest importance for the full realization ofthis pledge,

cofor

and

freedoms is of theNow, Therefore, THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims this
UNIVERSALDECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard ofachievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every
individualand every organ of society, keeping this Declaration
constantly in mind, shall strive
by teaching and education to promoterespect for these rights and freedoms and by
progressive measures,
national and international, to secure
theiruniversal
and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States
themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction."
https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/index.html ; andHuman Rights - All humans are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
WHEREAS, Article 1 of the UDHR states:"All humans are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards

each otherin the spirit of brotherhood."; andHuman Rights - the Right to Self-Determination.
WHEREAS, Article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966) (the"ICCPR") states:"All peoples have the right to self-determination.
By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status andpursue their economic, social and cultural development."

freelyhttps://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CCPR.aspx; andHuman Rights - Everyone is entitled to ALL the rights and freedoms set out inInternational law.
WHEREAS, Article 2 of the UDHR states:"Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set out in this Declaration,
without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political orother opinion, national or social origin,property, birth or other status.""Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political,
jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person
belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or
under any other limitationof sovereignty."
This includes the UK.; andHuman Rights - the Right to Life, Liberty and Security of Person.
WHEREAS, Article 3 of the UDHR states:"Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person."
The right to life and the right to security of person includes the right not to be experimented
upon without providing informed consent, freely given. Medical treatment and procedures
includes face masks, testing, vaccines/medical devices, isolation/quarantining/social distancing
measures. The right to liberty includes the rights of the freedom to refuse to consent to beexperimented upon or to receive medical treatments or procedures, freedom of movement, ofassociation, of speech and of beliefs, and of other liberties. The current school mandates formasks, testing and the policy of vaccinations at schools, the propaganda, teaching materials,
coercive and other psychological and emotional techniques being used to obtain consent, is a
prima facie breach of Article 3 of the UDHR. The provision of medical treatment or medical
procedures without obtaining informed consent, freely given amounts to a prima facie breachof Article 3 of the UDHR.; andHuman Rights - the Right to Life shall be protected by law.
WHEREAS, Article 3 of the UDHR, is enshrined in the European Convention on Human

Rights ("ECHR") in Article 2. the "Right to Life" :"Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law.
No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in theexecution of a sentence of a court following his conviction for acrime for which this penalty is provided by law."
The right to life cannot be derogated from under the UDHR - save in the execution of a sentenceof a court following his/her conviction for a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.
Under Article 15 of the ECHR, there is no right to derogate from the Right to Life - other thanin lawful acts of war. NOTE: there is no right to derogate from the Right to Life during a publichealth emergency
https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf; andHuman rights - the Right not to be arbitrarily deprived of the Right to Life.
WHEREAS, Article 3 of the UDHR and Article 2 of the ECHR, are enshrined in Article 6 of
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966) which states, inter alia:"Article 6.
1.

Every human being has the inherent right to life.
This right shall be protected by law.
No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.

3.
When deprivation of life constitutes the crime of
genocide, it is understood that nothing in this article shallauthorise any State Party to the present Covenant toderogate in any way from any obligation assumed underprovisions of the Convention on the Prevention andCrime of Genocide."; andthePunishment of the

Human Rights - the Right not to be subject to Torture, Cruel, Inhumane or Degrading
treatment or punishment.
WHEREAS, Article 5 of the UDHR states:"No one shall be subject to torture or to cruel, inhumane ordegrading treatment or punishment."; andHuman Rights - the Right not to be subjected to medical or scientific experimentation
without his or her free consent.
WHEREAS, Article 5 of the UDHR is enshrined in Article 7 of the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights (1966) (the "ICCPR"), which states:"Article 7.
"No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhumane ordegrading treatment or punishment.
In particular, no one shall be subjected without his freeconsent to medical or scientific experimentation."
No right to derogate even "in time of public emergency which threatens the life of thenation."Under Article 4 of the ICCPR, there is no right to derogate from Article 7 - even "in time of
public emergency which threatens the life of the nation".
"Article 4.2.
"No derogation from articles ....7...."
Article 5 of the ICCPR states:"Article 5.
1.
Nothing in this present Covenant may be interpreted as
implying for any State, group or person any right toengage in any activity or perform any act aimed at thedestruction of any of the rights and freedoms
recognized herein or at their limitation to a greater extent
than is provided for in the present Covenant.
2.
There shall be no restriction upon or derogation from anyof the fundamental human rights recognized or existing in
any State Party to the present Covenant pursuant to law,
conventions, regulations or customs to the pretex that thepresent Covenant does not recognize such rights or thatrecognizes them to a lesser extent." ; andit

The Siracusa Principles - limitation and derogation provisions of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
WHEREAS, in 1984, the American Association for the International Commission of Jurists(AAICJ) held an international colloquium in
Siracusa, Italy, which was co-sponsoredby the International Commission of Jurists. The focus of the colloquium was the limitation andderogation provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and theoutcome is a document that is referred to as the Siracusa Principles. The introductory note to
the Siracusa Principles commences in the following terms:"It has long been observed by the American Association for theInternational
Commission of Jurists (AAICJ) that one of the main instruments employed by governments torepress and deny the fundamental rights and freedoms of peoples has been the illegal andunwarranted Declaration of Martial Law or a State of Emergency. Very often thesemeasures are taken under the pretext of the existence of a "public
emergency
which
threatens the life of a nation" or "threats to national security".

The abuse of applicable provisions allowing governments to limitorderogate from certain rights contained in the International
Covenant on Civil andPolitical Rights has resulted in the need for a closer examination of the conditions andgrounds for permissible limitations and derogations in order to achieve aneffective
implementation of the rule of law.
The United Nations General Assembly has frequently emphasised theimportanceof a uniform interpretation of limitations on rights enunciated in the Covenant."
https://www.icj.org/wp-content/uploads/1984/07/Siracusa-principles-ICCPR-legalsubmission-1985-eng.pdf
Paragraph 58 of the Siracusa Principles - Non-Derogable Rights - These rights are notderogable under any conditions even for the asserted purpose of preserving the life of thenation.
WHEREAS, Paragraph 58 of the Siracusa Principles under the heading of Non-Derogable
Rights provides:"No state party shall, even in time of emergency threatening thelife of thenation, derogate from the Covenant's guarantees of the right to life; freedom from torture,
cruel, inhumane or degrading
treatment or punishment, and from medical orscientificexperimentation without free consent; freedom from slavery or
involuntary servitude; the right not to be imprisoned for contractual
debt; theright not to be convicted or sentenced to a heavier penalty by
virtue ofretroactive
criminal legislation; the right to recognition everywhere as aperson before the law; andfreedom of thought, conscience and religion.
These rights are not derogable under any conditions even for the
purpose of preserving the life of the nation." (emphasis added)."; andasserted

WHEREAS, in the case of Kimber, the Court held that paragraph 58 of the Siracusa Principles
is consistent with Article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (the"ICCPR"), stating, inter alia:[127] This is consistent with Article 4 of the International Covenant on
Political Rights."

Civil

and

- Kimber v Sapphire Coast Community Aged
Care Ltd (C2021/2672) Australian Fair
Work Commission, Sydney, 27th September 2021. ; andHuman Rights - the Right not to be forced to undergo a medical intervention without hisor her consent.
WHEREAS, Article 7 of the ICCPR is enshrined in the Convention for the Protection of
Human Rights and Dignity of the Human Being with regard to the Application of Biology andMedicine: Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine (ETS No 164) (1997), Oviedo,
Spain (the "Oviedo Convention"). The Oviedo Convention is a legally internationally binding
instrument on the protection of human rights in the medical field. It sets out fundamental
principles applicable to daily medical practice and is regarded as such at the European treaty

on patient's rights. Chapter II - Consent, Article 5 - General rule states, inter alia:"Article 5.

General rule34.
This article deals with consent and affirms at theinternational level an already well-established rule, that isthat no one may in principle be forced to undergo anintervention without his or her consent.
Human beings must therefore be able freely to give or
refuse their consent to any intervention involving theirperson.
This rule makes clear patient's autonomy in theirrelationship with health care professionals and restrains
the paternalistic approaches which might ignore the wish
the patient.

of

The word "intervention" is understood in its widest sense,
as in Article 4 - that is to say, it covers all medical acts, inparticular interventions performed for the purpose of
preventative care, diagnosis, treatment, rehabilitation or
research."
35.

"The patient's consent is considered to be free andinformed if it is given on the basis of objective informationfrom the responsible health care professional as to thenature and the potential consequences of the plannedintervention or of its alternatives, in the absence of anypressure from anyone.
In order for their consent to be valid the persons inquestion must have been informed about the relevantfacts regarding the intervention being contemplated.
This information must include the purpose, nature andconsequence of the intervention and the risks involved
Information on the risks involved in the intervention or in
the alternative courses of action must cover not only therisks inherent in the type of intervention contemplated,butalso any risks related to the individual characteristicsof
eachpatient, such as age or the existence of otherpathologies.
Requests for additional information made by patients
must be adequately answered.
36.

Moreover, this information must be sufficiently clear andsuitably worded for the person who is to undergo theintervention.

The patient must be put in a position, through the use ofterms he or she can understand, to weigh up thenecessary or usefulness of the aim and methods of theintervention against its risks and the discomfort or pain it

will

case.
37.

In some cases, however, for example invasive diagnostic
acts or treatments, express consent may be required.
Moreover, the patient's express, specific consent must be
obtained for participation in research.

38.

Freedom of consent implies the consent may be
withdrawn at any time and that the decision of the person
concerned shall be respected once he or she has been
fully informed of the consequences."
https://rm.coe.int/168007cf98; andWHEREAS, Article 5 of the UDHR is enshrined in the ECHR in Article 3. the "Right toProhibition of torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment":"Article 3.
"No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading
treatment."; andThis includes the right not to be experimented upon without providing informed consent, freely
given. (see, for example, Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights(1966) above). The provision of medical treatment or medical procedures and/or conducting
psychological manipulation/warfare, without obtaining informed consent freely given,amounts to a prima facie breach of Article 5 of the UDHR and Article 3 of the ECHR, andunder Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966). Under
Article 15 of the ECHR, there is no right to derogate from the prohibition of torture or toinhumane or degrading treatment - not even in acts of war as such act would be unlawful under
the War Conventions, nor in a public health emergency, even if it's threatening the life of thenation.; andWHEREAS, the ECHR, Article 15 - "Derogation in time of emergency" - states:"1.
In time of war or other public health emergency threatening thelife of the nation, any High Contracting Party may takemeasures derogating from its obligations under this Convention
totheextent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation,
providedthat such measures are not inconsistent with its otherobligations underinternational law.
2.

No derogation from Article 2 [the "Right to Life"], except in
respect of deaths resulting from lawful acts of war, or from

Articles 3 ["Prohibition of torture or inhumane or degrading
treatment", 4 (paragraph 1) and 7 shall be made under thisprovision."
This means that the right to life [Article 2 of the ECHR, Article 3 of the UDHR], cannot bederogated from in a so-called public health emergency. Even in times of war, the right toderogate is limited to "lawful acts of war", not unlawful ones.
This also means that the right to "Prohibition of torture or inhumane or degrading treatment"[Article 3 of the ECHR, Article 5 of the UDHR ], cannot be derogated from under a publichealth emergency - even if it is threatening the life of a nation.
In respect of other rights listed in the ECHR, the right to derogate is limited to those measuresthat are STRICTLY required. However, the measures taken must not be inconsistent with otherobligations under international [and European and UK] law. Any act/omission by you, theschool, its employees, agents, or others which derogates from the child/child's, parent/s,
grandparent/s, or others right to life, is a prima facie breach of Article 2 of the ECHR, in
addition to Article 3 of the UDHR; andHuman Rights - the Right to be recognised everywhere as a person before the law.
WHEREAS, Article 6 of the UDHR states:"Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before

the law."

Refusing to recognise an individual's fundamental, inalienable human rights, whether set out
in the UDHR or in other laws, is a prima facie breach of Article 6 of the UDHR; andWHEREAS, Article 6 of the UDHR is enshrined in Article 16 of the ICCPR, which states:"Everyone shall have the right to recognition everywhere as a personlaw."; andbefore the

Human Rights - the Right to Equal Protection of the law against any discrimination in
violation of international law.
WHEREAS, Article 7 of the UDHR states:"All are equal before the law and are entitled without discrimination to
equal
protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against
any discrimination
violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination."inThis Article enshrines the legal maxim that "all are equal before the law" and no one is above
the Rule of law. As such, discrimination - including incitement to discrimination - in violationof the UDHR, is a prima facie breach of Article 7 ; andWHEREAS, Article 7 of the UDHR is enshrined in Part II of the ICCPR, which states:"Part II
1.

Each State Party to the present Convention undertakes torespect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory
andsubject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in thepresent
Covenant, without distinction of any kind such as
race, colour, sex,
language, religious, political or other
opinions, national orsocial origin, property, birth or otherstatus."
Article 7 of the UDHR is also enshrined in Article 3 of the ICCPR, which states:"Article 3.
"The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake toensure the equal right of men and women to the enjoyment ofcivil and political rights set forth in the present Covenant.";

all
and

WHEREAS, Article 7 of the UDHR is enshrined in Article 26 of the ICCPR, which states:"Article 26.
"All persons are equal before the law and entitled without any
discrimination to the equal protection of the law.
In this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination andguarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against
discrimination on any ground such as race, colour, sex,
language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social
origin, property, birth or other status."; andHuman Rights - the Right of the Child not to be discriminated against.
WHEREAS, Article 7 of the UDHR is enshrined in Article 24 of the ICCPR, which states:"Article 24.
1.
"Every child shall have, without any discrimination as to race,
colour, sex, language, religion, national or social origin, property
birth right to such measures of protection as are required by
as a minor, on the part of his family, society and theState."; andhisorstatusWHEREAS, Article 7 of the UDHR is enshrined in the ECHR in Article 14. the "Prohibitionof discrimination":"Article 14.
The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in thisConvention shall be secured without discrimination on
anyground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion,
political or other
opinion, national or social origin,association with a national
minority, property, birth orother status."
Discriminating against an individual on the basis that they cannot or will not wear a mask, takea test or take an experimental COVID-19 vaccine by treating them differently to those who dowear a mask, take a test or take an experimental COVID-19 vaccine, is a prima facie breach of
Article 14 of the ECHR in addition to Article 7 of the UDHR. Any form of medical apartheidis in prima facie breach of these Articles.; andWHEREAS, the Fair Work Commission in Australia in the case of Kimber v Sapphire Coast
Community Aged Care Ltd (C2021/2676), stated that all Australians should "vigorously oppose
the introduction of a system of medical apartheid and segregation in Australia", and held it tobe an "abhorrent concept" which is "morally and ethically wrong" and that such a system of
medical apartheid is an "antithesis of our democratic way of life and everything we value.",inter alia:[182] All Australians should vigorously oppose the introduction of asystem of
medical apartheid and segregation in Australia. It is anabhorrent concept and is morally
and ethically wrong, and the antithesis of our democratic way of life and everything wevalue."
Kimber v Sapphire Coast Community Aged Care Ltd (C2021/2676) Australian Fair Work
Commission, Sydney, 27th September 2021; andHuman Rights - the prohibition by law of advocacy of hatred that constitutes incitement
to discrimination, hostility or violence.
WHEREAS, Article 7 of the UDHR is enshrined in Article 20.2 of the ICCPR, which states:"Article 20.2.
"Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that
constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shallprohibited by law. ; andbe

WHEREAS, the Fair Work Commission in Australia in the case of Kimber v Sapphire Coast
Community Aged Care Ltd (C2021/2676), 27th September 2021 states, inter alia:"[180] The statements by politicians that those who are notvaccinatedare a threat to public health and should be "locked out of society" and denied theability to work are not measures to protect public health.
They are not about public health and not justified because they do not
actual risk of COVID.

address the

These measures can only be about punishing those who choose not tovaccinated.

beIf the purpose of the Public Health Orders is genuinely to reduce thespread of
COVID, there is no basis for locking out people who do nothave COVID, which iseasily established by a rapid antigen test.
Conversely, a vaccinated person who contracts COVID should be required to isolate
until such time as they have recovered."- Kimber v Sapphire Coast Community Aged Care Ltd (C2021/2676) Australian Fair Work
Commission, Sydney, 27th September 2021; and;Human Rights - the Right not to be subjected to arbitrary interference with anindividual's privacy, family or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour andreputation.
WHEREAS, Article 12 of the UDHR states:"No one shall be subjected to arbitrary intereference with his privacy,
correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation."familyorThis includes the right not to have live human medical treatments or medical procedures orexperiments conducted on a person without their fully informed consent, freely given. This
also includes the right to privacy including the right not to be required to provide medical
information to another without consent. This also includes the right not to have an individual's
honour or reputation to be attacked in any way e.g. by calling them "anti-vaxxers" or "antimaskers" or "conspiracy theorists" or other such derogatory, inappropriate and discriminatory
terms.
Human Rights - the Right to be protected by law from such interference or attacks.
WHEREAS, Article 12 continues:"Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against suchattacks."

interferenceorRequiring/encouraging/mandating that an individual wear a mask, take a test or take anexperimental COVID-19 vaccine or provide vaccine certificates, test results or exemption
certificates or mandating isolation, social distancing and quarantining of a person amounts toan "arbitrary interference" with a person's privacy, family and correspondence in prima facie
breach of Article 12 of the UDHR. These measures are "arbitrary" as they are not based on theavailable scientific evidence which show that these measures are unscientific, irrational,
unreasonable, disproportionate and unnecessary and are causing significant harm, loss,
suffering, disability and/or death. ; andWHEREAS, Article 12 of the UDHR is enshrined in Article 17 of the ICCPR, which states:"Article 17.
1.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawfulinterference with his privacy, family, home orcorrespondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour or
reputation.
2.
Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against
such interference or attacks."; andHuman Rights - the Right to respect for Private and Family Life shall not be interferedwith by a public authority.
WHEREAS, Article 12 of the UDHR is enshrined in Article 8 of the European Convention
on Human Rights ("the ECHR"). Article 8 of the ECHR states:"Article 8.

the "Right to respect for private and family life":"Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life,
his home and his correspondence.
There shall be no interference by a public authority with theexercise of this right except upon such as is in accordance withthe law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interestsofnational security, public safety or the economic well-being of
thecountry, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for theprotectionof healths or morals, or for the protection of the rights
and freedoms ofothers."WHEREAS, the case law of the European Court of Human Rights establishes thattheprovision of medical treatment without consent constitutes an interference with article 8 of the
ECHR as held in the case of Pretty v United Kingdom (2002) 35 EHRR 1 (EctHR), in which
the court held, inter alia:"the imposition of medical treatment, without the consent of amentallycompetent adult patient, would interfere with a person's
physical integrity in amanner capable of engaging the rights
protected under article 8 (1) of theConvention [the ECHR]."https://www.hrdp.org/files/2013/09/11/CASE_OF_PRETTY_v._THE_UNITED_KINGDOM_.pdf ; andHuman Rights - the Right to freedom of Thought, Conscience and Religion.
WHEREAS, Article 18 of the UDHR states:"Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this rightincludes freedom to change his religion or belief, andfreedom, either alone or incommunity with others and in public or
private, to manifest his religion or belief inteaching, practice, worship and observance."
This includes the right to refuse consent for medical or pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceuticalinterventions either based on thought/opinion, conscience or religion. Refusing to permit
freedom of thought, conscience or religion is a prima facie breach of Article 18 of the UDHR;
andHuman Rights - the Right to respect for the Liberty of Parents and Legal Guardians toensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own
convictions.
WHEREAS, Article 18 of the UDHR is enshrined in Article 18 of the ICCPR, which states:

"Article 18.
1.

Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought,
conscience and religion.

2.
The States Parties to the present Convention undertaketo have respect for the liberty of parents, and, whenapplicable, legal guardians to ensure the religious andmoral education of their children in conformity with theirown convictions." ; andWHEREAS, Article 18 of the UDHR is enshrined in the ECHR in Article 9 " the right tofreedom of thought, conscience and religion", as follows:
Article 9. the "Right to Freedom of thought, conscience and religion":"Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience orreligion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or
belief and freedom, either alone or in a community with others
andin public or in private, to manifest his religion or belief, inworship, teaching,practice and observance.""Freedom to manifest one's religions or beliefs shall be subject
only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and arenecessary in a democratic society in the interests of public
safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or forprotection of the rights and freedoms of others."

theThis includes the right to refuse to consent to wearing a mask, taking a test, isolating,quarantining, socially distance and receiving medical treatment or medical procedures, orproviding their personal or medical information to others, whether this refusal to consent tothese measures be on the basis of the person's opinion, their conscience or their religious beliefs
and doctrines. Refusing to permit freedom of thought, conscience or religion is a prima facie
breach of Article 9 of the ECHR and Article 18 of the UDHR; andHuman Rights - the Right to uphold Opinions without interference and to seek, receive
and impart Information and Ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
WHEREAS, Article 19 of the UDHR states:"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes
freedoms to uphold opinions without interference and to seek, receive
andimpartinformation and ideas through any media andregardless of frontiers."; andWHEREAS, Article 19 of the UDHR is enshrined in Article 19 of the ICCPR, which states:"Article 19.
1.

Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions withoutinterference.";
WHEREAS, Article 19 of the UDHR is enshrined in the ECHR in Article 10. the "Right ofFreedom of Expression":"Article 10.
Everyone has the right to freedom of expression.
This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive
and impart information and ideas without interference by publicauthority and regardless of frontiers.
This includes the right to express opinions, verbally or in writing or by protesting or throughart or music or other such forms of expression without interference from teachers and theschool's employees and agents. This also includes the right to receive ALL the information
about the alleged benefits, efficacy, risks, harms and funding sources and conflicts of interests
surrounding the so-called COVID-19 pandemic measures, both domestically andinternationally without inteference, censorship, reputational attacks, blocking of informationand other such measures. Any information provided by the teachers, the school and its'
employees and agents which does NOT provide both sides of the debate of the risk/benefit
analysis of such COVID-19 pandemic measures, will likely amount to an "interference" andwill be a prima facie breach of Article 19 of the UDHR and Article 10 of the ECHR;
WHEREAS, in the case of Kimber, the court held that all Australians, including those who
hold or are suspected of holding "anti-vaccination sentiments" are entitled to the protection of
the rule of law, stating inter alia:"[184] Finally, all Australians, including those who hold or aresuspectedofholding "anti vaccination sentiments", are entitled to the protection of our laws..."; and- Kimber v Sapphire Coast Community Aged Care Ltd (C2021/2676) Australian Fair Work
Commission, Sydney, 27th September 2021; andWHEREAS, the Rome Declaration contains allegations by Physicians that they are being
discouraged from engaging in open professional discourse and the exchange of ideas about
new and emerging diseases - endangering the essence of the medical profession and the livesof Patients. The Rome Declaration contains the following Declaration, inter alia:"WHEREAS, physicians are increasingly being discouraged from engaging in open
professional discourse and the exchange of ideas
about new and emerging diseases, notonly endangering the essence of the medical profession, but more importantly, more tragically,thelives of our patients." -https://stateofthenation.co/?p=86476
Such censorship is a prima facie breach of Article 19 and Article 10 of the ECHR. The same
applies to a child/children, their parents/grandparents, teachers or staff or others who are being
discouraged from engaging in open professional discourse and the exchange of ideas andinformation.; andWHEREAS, in the case of Kimber, the court held that Australians should "vigorously oppose"the "ongoing censorship of any views that question the current policies regarding COVID-19",
stating, inter alia:["183] Australians should also vigorously oppose the ongoing
censorship of any
views that question the current policies regarding COVID. Science is no longer science if aperson is not allowed toquestion it."
- Kimber v Sapphire Coast Community Aged Care Ltd (C2021/2676) Australian Fair Work
Commission, Sydney, 27th September 2021;and
WHEREAS, Article 10 of the ECHR provides for a limited right to derogate from the right tofreedom of expression as follows:"The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties andresponsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions,
restrictions
or penalties as are prescribed by law and arenecessaryinademocratic society, in the interests of national
security, territorial integrity or
public safety, for the prevention ofdisorder or crime, for the protection of health or
morals, for theprotection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing thedisclosure of information received in confidence, or for
maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary."; andHuman Rights - the Right to Freedom of peaceful Assembly and Association.
WHEREAS, Article 20 (1) of the UDHR states:"Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly andassociation."

This includes the right to socialise with others, to peacefully gather with others and topeacefully protest, including peacefully protesting outside schools. Any restriction placed on
this right, is a prima facie breach of Article 20 (1) of the UDHR. ; andHuman Rights - the Right to take part in the government of an individual's country.
,

WHEREAS, Article 21 of the UDHR states:"(1)

Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his
country, directly or through freely chosen representatives."

This includes the right to challenge you personally, as well as the school, it's employees andagents regarding the decision to employ the COVID-19 measures of masking, testing,vaccinating, isolating, quarantine, socially distancing, compliance techniques on thechild/children, parent/s and grandparent/s and others on your school premises. ; andHuman Rights - the Right of Equal Access to Public Services in an individual's country.
WHEREAS, Article 21 of the UDHR continues:"(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public services in his
country."This includes the right of the child/children, parent/s, grandparent/s and others to access theschool premises for the purposes of facilitating the right of the child/children to an education.
This right is enshrined regardless of masking/testing/vaccination or other status. Refusal toprovide the right of equal access to the school and to education is a prima facie breach of Article
21 of the UDHR; andHuman Rights - the Right to Work, the Right to free Choice of Employment, the Right toJust and Favourable conditions of work, the Right to Protection against unemployment.
WHEREAS, Article 23 of the UDHR states:"(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, tojust and favourable conditions of work and to protection against
unemployment."
This includes the right for the teachers and staff at the school to work with "just and favourable"
conditions of work, which includes the right not to be harmed whilst at work. The Health and
Safety at Work Management Regulations 1999, Regulation 3 requires the employer to provide
an individual risk assessment to their employees and others on their premises, PRIOR to
implementing any measures which may place the employee and others at risk of harm e.g. facemasks, invasive testing, invasive vaccinations, isolation, social distancing, quarantining,
psychological and emotional compliance methods and other such measures used by theemployer to manage the spread of a virus in the workplace. Failure to conduct an individual
risk assessment is a prima facie civil and potentially criminal breach of the Health & Safety at
Work legislation, as well as a prima facie breach of Article 23 of the UDHR, as well as othercivil and criminal laws outlined below. ; andHuman Rights - the Right to Equal Pay.
WHEREAS, Article 23 of the UDHR continues:"(2) Everyone, without discrimination, has the right to equal pay for
equal work.
(3)
Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable
remuneration for ensuring for himself and his family an
existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented if
necessary, by other means of social protection."
This includes the right to equal pay regardless of masking, testing, or vaccination or otherstatus. A failure to provide equal pay is a prima facie breach of Article 23 of the UDHR ; andHuman Rights - the Right to an "adequate" Standard of Living for the health and wellbeing of the individual and family.
WHEREAS, Article 25 of the UDHR states:"(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for thehealth and well-being of himself and of his family, including
food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social

services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment,
sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of
livelihood in circumstances beyond his control."This includes the right to medical care that includes the right to provide consent or to refuse
consent to medical treatment and procedures. It also includes the right to education and school
and other services necessary for the child and his/her family. Failure to provide adequate
medical care and educational services for the child/children and his/her/their family is a prima
facie breach of Article 25 of the UDHR. Failing to provide adequate medical care includes
failing to ensure that the child/children provides his/her/their fully informed consent, freely
given, to wearing a mask, taking a test, taking a vaccine, isolating, socially distancing,quarantining and other such measures. Any such failure is a prima facie breach of Article 25 of
the UDHR; andHuman Rights - the Right of the Mother and of the Child to Special Care and Assistance.
WHEREAS, Article 25 of the UDHR states that:"(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care andassistance."
This includes the "Welfare of the Child" and "Paramountcy" principles i.e. that the welfare of
the child should be paramount in any decision, policy, programme involving a child. A failure
to ensure that the welfare of the child/children is paramount over the welfare of others, is a
prima facie breach of Article 25 of the UDHR. A failure to ensure that a mothers' welfare isprioritised over the welfare of others, is also a prima facie breach of Article 25 of the UDHR;
andHuman Rights - the Right of the Child to be protected before Adults.
WHEREAS, children have legal, lawful, ethical and moral rights enshrined in International,
European and domestic, UK laws;
WHEREAS, there is a legal and ethical obligation to protect children before adults - Article
7(a) and Article 7(b) of the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights [2005].
http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.phpURL_ID%3D31058%26URL_DO%3DDO_TOPIC%26URL_SECTION%3D201.html ; andWHEREAS, Article 10 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
1966 ("the ICESR") stipulates, inter alia, that special measures of protection and assistanceshould be taken for children and young persons without discrimination.
https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/cescr.aspx; andWHEREAS, Article 12.2(a) of the ICESR stipulates that the State must take measures toreduce infant mortality and promote the healthy development of infants and children.
Subsequent human rights instruments recognise that children and adolescents have the right tothe enjoyment of the highest standard of health and access to facilities for the treatment of
illness - paragraph 22, General Comment No.14: "The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard
of
Health(Article12),
11thAugust,Doc
E/C.12/2000/4."
https://www.refworld.org/pdfid/4538838d0.pdf; andWHEREAS, in all policies and programmes aimed at guaranteeing the right to health ofchildren and adolescents, their best interests shall be a primary consideration - paragraph 19,
General Comment No.14: "The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Health (Article12), 11th August, Doc E/C.12/2000/4."- https://www.refworld.org/pdfid/4538838d0.pdf; andWHEREAS, the Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) provides further details on therights of minors, stating, inter alia:"This Convention directs States to ensure access to essential healththe child and his or her family."

services for

The Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) links these goals with ensuring access tochild-friendly information about preventative and health-promoting behaviour and support tofamilies and communities in implementing these practices.
The right to health of a child is recognized further in article 24 of the Convention.
- https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/crc.aspx; andWHEREAS, a Safeguarding Officer has compiled the "Safeguarding Children and Young
People During the Covid-Pandemic" paper. In it, he/she provides information that satisfies an"Emergency Raising of Serious Concerns." All those in a position of influence who do notread and act upon this document, are likely to become directly accountable, as well as
personally liable, for any injuries (including deaths) of children and young adults within their
Safeguarding remit.
https://www.scie.org.uk/care-providers/coronavirus-covid-19/safeguarding/children; andHuman Rights - the Right to Education, to the full development of the human personality
and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms.
WHEREAS, Article 26 of the UDHR states:"(1)

Everyone has the right to education.

(2)
Education shall be directed to the full development of thehuman personality and to the strengthening of respect forhuman rights and fundamental freedoms.
It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among
nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities
the UN for the maintenance of peace."ofImplementing the COVID-19 measures listed previously, is in prima facie breach of Article 26
as the child/children have been prevented from the "full development" of their personalities
having been denied the ability to read and interact with other people's faces and facial
expressions due to the wearing of face masks, having been isolated at home doing online
learning, having been socially distanced from their friends at school and elsewhere, having

been denied access to sports, arts, music and other such clubs and events. Implementing the
COVID-19 measures is not respecting human rights and fundamental freedoms and is therefore
a prima facie breach of Article 26 of the UDHR. ; and;Human Rights - the Right of the Parent to choose the kind of education that shall be given
to their child.
WHEREAS, Article 26 of the UDHR states:"(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education thatshall be given to their children."; andWHEREAS, Section 13 of the Education Act 1996 imposes the general responsibility of the
Local Authority for education. It reads:"13. A local authority shall ...contribute towards the spiritual, moral,
mental and physical development of the community by securingthatefficient primary education, and secondary education, and, inthe case of
a local authority in England, further education, areavailable to meet the needsof the population in their area." https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/56/section/13.
The responsibility to secure efficient education for children is not diminished by policy orrequests from Government which the government has not written into law.; andWHEREAS, accordingly, and as has always been the case, the Schools have always retained
the ability to:
•
•
•
•
•
•

refuse to arrange, encourage or mandate testing of children or
staff
SARS-CoV-2;
refuse to arrange, encourage or mandate wearing of face- coverings
children or staff;
refuse to close;
refuse to arrange, encourage or mandate online or remote learning;
to provide education at the Schools in a traditional way;
to take only such steps to mitigate the spread of SARS-CoV-2
asproportionate and necessary; and

for
by

are

WHEREAS, any and all of the Non-Pharmaceutical Interventions (NPIs) and Pharmaceutical
Interventions (PIs) being applied in Schools which significantly interfere with the duty tosecure efficient education are unlawful, illegal, immoral and unethical. The exception is if the
NPI is shown, based on evidence, not media reports, to be both proportionate and necessary in
avoiding risks to the health and safety of those to whom it owes a duty of care; andAllegation of breach of section 175 of the Education Act 2002.
WHEREAS, the wearing of face masks, isolating, quarantining, testing and injecting children
in schools with COVID-19 vaccinations amounts to a prima facie breach of section 175 of the
Education Act 2002, under which all schools and staff have the responsibility to have

arrangements in place to Safeguard and promote the welfare of children-https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/32/section/175/enacted.; andHuman Rights - the Right to Participate in Cultural life of the community, the Right to
Enjoy the Arts and the Right to Share in Scientific advancement and its benefits.
WHEREAS, Article 27 of the UDHR states:"(1)

Everyone has the right to participate in the cultural life of thecommunity, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientificadvancement and its benefits."

The school has denied access to sports, arts, music and other such clubs and events over theso-called COVID-19 pandemic measures. The school has not shared the scientific advancement
and its benefits with the child/children, parent/s, grandparent/s and others as they have failed
to share the following scientific advancements and its benefits, inter alia:
1.
The scientific and medical discovery that both Ivermectin andHydroxychloroquine, Vitamin D, C and Zinc and Quercetin arebeing used globally to successfully treat
the symptoms of
COVID-19, making the requirement to take anexperimental COVID-19 vaccine unnecessary; and2.
The scientific and medical evidence that face masks do notprevent the transmission of a virus particle the tiny size of
SARS-CoV-2, that they increase the risk of transmission of virus
particles due to turning droplets into aerosols which carry further
the air current and they pose a risk to the wearer of multiple
damage; and

on
organ

3.
The scientific and medical and legal evidence that the PCR-test
and the lateral flow tests are not fit for purpose, provide a 97%
false positive result rate and cause multiple harms; and4.

The scientific and medical evidence that socially distancing,quarantining healthy people and isolation is causing harm, injury
and death; anda failure to disclose such scientific advancements is a prima facie breach of Article 27 of the
UDHR; andHuman Rights - the Right to a Social and International Order in which their Rights andFreedoms can be fully realized.
WHEREAS, Article 28 of the UDHR states:"Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which
the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully
realized."A failure to provide a social order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in the UDHR, will
be a prima facie breach of Article 28 of the UDHR. ;and
Human Rights - the Right to Exercise Rights and Freedoms - subject only to such
limitations as are determined by law.
WHEREAS, Article 29 of the UDHR states:"(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free
and full development of his personality is possible.
(2)
In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be
subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely
forthe purpose of securing due recognition and respect for therightsandfreedoms of others and of meeting the justrequirementsofmorality, public order and the general welfare ina democratic society.".
The limitations do NOT include a right for anyone else to harm another or to breach another'shuman rights, other than in accordance with the law. Any limitations/restrictions to the rights
of individuals set out in the UDHR, can only be imposed if they are "determined by law" andSOLELY for the purpose of "securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedomsof others" AND of meeting the "just requirements" of "morality", "public order" AND the"general welfare" in a "democratic society". In other words, the limitations must be lawful,legal, moral and SOLELY for the purposes set out. It is not legal, lawful or moral to limit anindividual's human rights other than as prescribed. Any limitation/restriction that is not inaccordance with these provisions, is a prima facie breach of the UDHR; andHuman Rights - the Right not to have Rights and Freedoms destroyed by any activity or
act by a State, group or persons.
WHEREAS, Article 30 of the UDHR states:"Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any
State,
group or persons any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed
the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein."atThis enshrines the statutory interpretation that should be applied to the UDHR when
considering the right to derogate/limit/restrict any of the human rights set out therein. ; andWHEREAS, Article 17 - Limitations on use and restrictions of rights, states:"The restrictions permitted under this Convention to the said
rights and freedoms shall not be applied for any purpose otherfor which they have been prescribed."; andthan those

WHEREAS, Article 15 - "Derogation in time of emergency" - ECHR states:"1.
In time of war or other public health emergency threatening thelife of thenation, any High Contracting Party may takemeasures derogating fromits obligations under this Convention
to the extent strictly required by theexigencies of the situation,
provided that such measures are not inconsistent with
its otherobligations under international law.
2.

No derogation from Article 2 [the "Right to Life"], except in
respect of deaths resulting from lawful acts of war, or from
Articles 3["Prohibition of torture or inhumane or degrading
treatment", 4 (paragraph1) and 7 shall be made under thisprovision.
3.
Any High Contracting Party availing itself of this right ofderogation
shall keep the Secretary General of the Council ofEurope fully informed of themeasures which it has taken and thereasons therefore.
It shall also inform the Secretary General of the Council ofEuropewhen such measures have ceased to operate and theprovisions of the Convention areagain being fully executed."
Given that you, the school, its employees and others are availing yourselves of the right toderogate from Article 2 and Article 3 and other Articles of the ECHR, and the requirement tokeep the Secretary General of the Council of Europe "fully informed" of the measures which it
has taken and the reasons therefore, you are required to provide evidence to the person whoserights you seek to derogate from. The evidence sought is listed in this Notice ; andActs of Parliament and the Common Law cannot be changed by the executive.
WHEREAS, the ECHR has been incorporated into UK domestic law in the Human Rights Act
1998. There are no emergency derogations to the Human Rights Act for any purpose relating
to an emergency in the UK and the right at common law to valid consent has no emergency
derogations. You, the school, its employees and others, including the courts, cannot therefore
lawfully use the pandemic to claim that any of the human rights engaged should be derogated
for the purposes of the pandemic emergency.
"The executive (government) cannot change law made by Act of
the common law"

Parliament,nor- R Miller v DExEU [2017] UKSC 5.
https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2016-0196.html; andWHEREAS, the ECHR ensures the need for interventions taken by the Government and Stateto remain "evidence-based" as well as "necessary" and "proportionate". "Proportionate" meansbalancing the competing interests with "evidence-based" facts: in this case, to determine
whether the UK has a "Public Health Emergency" under which the Government and the State,you, the School and others are claiming their right to derogate from their obligations to upholdhuman rights; whether the implementation of both Non-Pharmaceutical Interventions (such as
Lockdowns, Social distancing, "bubbles", quarantining of healthy individuals) andPharmaceutical Interventions (such as the so-called "COVID-19 vaccines", the face masks, thePCR or lateral flow tests) are strictly "necessary" in a democratic society in the interests ofpublic safety, for the maintenance of public order, for the protection of health or morals, or forthe protection of the rights and freedoms of others; andAllegation of infringement of inalienable, fundamental human rights.
WHEREAS, infringements and violations of living men, women and children's inalienable,
fundamental rights, civil liberties and freedoms by so-called "pandemic" laws are unnecessary,
unfounded, disproportionate, unreasonable, irrational, unethical, immoral, unconstitutional,
undemocratic, unlawful, illegal under domestic, European and International civil law andcriminal law;
United Nations Office for the High Commissioner for Human Rights for introducing
COVID public health response measures.
WHEREAS, In an article published by Monash University's Castan Centre for Human Rights
Law, the author, Professor the Hon Ken Bell AM QC, considered the COVID guidance issued
by the United Nations Office for the High Commissioner for Human Rights for introducing
COVID response measures consistent with human rights. He provided the following summary:[Requirement for emergency measures that restrict human rights to be "proportionate","necessary" and "non-discriminatory"]:•

International law allows emergency measures in response tosignificant
threats - but measures that restrict human rights
should be proportionate to theevaluated risk, necessary andapplied in a non-discriminatory way. Thismeans having a
specific focus and duration, and taking the least intrusive
approach possible to protect public health.

[Requirement for emergency powers to only be used for "legitimate" public health goals]:•

With regard to COVID-19, emergency powers must only be
used forlegitimate public health goals, not used as a basis to quash dissent, silence the workof human rights defenders or journalists, deny other human rights or take any othersteps thatare not strictly necessary to address the health situation.

[Requirement for Governments to inform the public of what the emergency measures are,where they apply, for how long and provide updated information, widely available]:•Governments should inform the affected population of what the
emergency
measures are, where they apply and for how long they are intended to remain in
effect, and should update this information regularly and make it widely available.

[Requirement for Governments to ensure a return to life "as normal" and NOT use
emergency powers to "indefinitely" regulate day-to-day life]:•

As soon as feasible, it will be important for Governments toensureareturn to life as normal and not use emergency powers
to indefinitely regulate
day-to-day life, recognising that the response must match the needs of different
phases of the crisis."
https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/SP/COVID/Academics/Castan_
Centre_and_Prof_Joe.pdf; andLegal opinion re unlawfulness of Public Health Orders and re right to suspend humanrights during states of emergency or disaster.
WHEREAS, in the case of Kimber, the court held that, inter alia:"[173] In summary, the powers to make Public Health Orders (PHOs)
cannotlawfully be used in a way that is punitive, and human rights are
not suspended during
states of emergency or disaster.
PHOs, by their nature, are designed and intended for short term use inan emergency or crisis. They are not intended to be an
ongoing vehicle
significant deprivations of our civil liberties.

the event of
to enforce

The COVID pandemic started over 20 months ago. The time is fast approachingwhere the reliance on PHO's will no longer be justified on publichealthgrounds,
particularly where there is such a significant
intrusion on civil liberties"- Kimber v Sapphire Coast Community Aged
Care Ltd (C2021/2672) Australian Fair
Work Commission, Sydney, 27th September 2021.
Legal opinion re the "necessity" and "reasonableness" of the denial or restrictions on
basic liberties
WHEREAS, in the case of Kimber, the court stated that, inter alia:"[160].. the necessity and reasonableness of the denial or restrictions
on basic
liberties must be weighed against a variety of other serious flow on consequences such as thesignificant increase in mental health issues and domestic violence, and against the serious
economicdamage that has been caused and will continue to be caused by theexisting measures found in the Public Health Orders."- Kimber v Sapphire Coast Community Aged
Care Ltd (C2021/2672) Australian Fair
Work Commission, Sydney, 27th September 2021.
Legal opinion re "far less restrictive" and "less intrusive" ways to ensure public health.
WHEREAS, in the case of Kimber, the court stated that, inter alia:"[164] It should be abundantly clear that there are other, far less restrictive and lessintrusive ways in which we can ensure public healthand appropriately address the riskof COVID without resorting to the extreme measures currently in place."- Kimber v Sapphire Coast Community Aged
Care Ltd (C2021/2672) Australian Fair
Work Commission, Sydney, 27th September 2021.; andLegal opinion re "proportionality" of COVID-19 public health measure.
WHEREAS, in the case of Kimber, the court stated that:"[172] The initial predictions of a 60% infection rate from COVID with a 1%
rate thankfully did not materialise.

deathIt is now time to ask whether the "cure" is proportionate to the risk, andshould be a resounding no.

the answer

When deciding now what is reasonable, necessary and proportionate
in terms of
any response to COVID, governments and employers should
actively avoid the hysteria
and fear-mongering that is now so prevalent in the public discourse, and which will cloud
rational, fact- based decision making."to[173] The current PHOs have moved well past the minimum
achieve public health aims, and into the realm of depravation.

necessary

It is not proportionate, reasonable or necessary to "lock out" those who areunvaccinated and remove their ability to work or otherwise contribute to society."; and- Kimber v Sapphire Coast Community Aged
Care Ltd (C2021/2672) Australian Fair
Work Commission, Sydney, 27th September 2021.; andLegal opinion that mandating or blanket rules regarding vaccines for everyone FAILS
the test of "proportionality", "necessity" and "reasonableness"
WHEREAS, in the case of Kimber, the court stated, held that, inter alia:"[181] Blanket rules, such as mandating vaccinations for everyone
across awhole profession or industry, regardless of the actual risk, fail the test of proportionality,
necessity and reasonableness.
It is more than the absolute minimum necessary to combat the crisis andjustified on health grounds.

cannot be

It is a lazy and fundamentally flawed approach to risk management andsoundly rejected by courts when challenged."should be- Kimber v Sapphire Coast Community Aged Care Ltd (C2021/2676) Australian Fair Work
Commission, Sydney, 27th September 2021; andWHEREAS, in the case of Kimber, the court held that, inter alia:"[146] Finally, it should be clearly understood that employers who mandate
vaccinations will be liable for any adverse reactions their workers may experience, given
this is a foreseeable outcome for somepeople,";- Kimber v Sapphire Coast Community Aged Care Ltd (C2021/2672) Australian Fair Work
Commission, Sydney, 27th September 2021. ; andExpert legal opinion on requirement to be "particularly vigilant to protect civil liberties
and human rights"
WHEREAS, in an article recently published by two Senior Lecturers from the Faculty of Law
at Monash University entitled "Wars, Pandemics and Emergencies What can history tell us
about executive power and surveillance in times of Crisis", the authors concluded that "in anemergency, we must be particularly vigilant to protect civil liberties and human rights against
incursions that are more than the absolute minimum necessary to combat the crisis...";
https://www.unswlawjournal.unsw.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/07-Ng-Gray.pdf; andHuman Rights - the Right to an Effective Remedy.
WHEREAS, the European Convention on Human Rights ("the ECHR"), contains thefollowing human rights, inter alia:
Article 13. the "Right to an effective remedy":"Everyone whose rights and freedoms set forth in thisConvention are violated shall have an effective remedy
before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation
been committed by persons acting in an official capacity."(emphasis added).

has

https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf; andWHEREAS, you are therefore required to provide evidence that the measures you have
employed are "necessary" "legitimate" "reasonable" and "proportionate", "evidence-based" and"least restrictive" as weighed against the harm that is being caused by these measures such as:a. the increase in mental health issues ;b. the increase in domestic violence issues ;c. the increase in financial and economic loss;
d. the increase in suicides - "deaths of despair";e. the increase in learning and other difficulties;
and issues of the child/children, the family of the child/children, employees and others affectedby your measures; andWHEREAS, infringement of human rights may incur liabilities on the enforcers, promotors
and/or administrators of such infringements for harm, loss, suffering, injury and/or deathcaused by actions and/or omissions;
Sanctions for breach of Human Rights - the Global Human Rights Sanctions Regulations
2020 No.680
WHEREAS, the Explanatory Memorandum to the Global Human Rights Sanctions
Regulations 2020 No. 680, states, inter alia:"6.2. The Sanctions Act establishes a legal framework which enables
Her Majesty's Government (HMG) to continue to give effect tothose sanction regimes and to introduce other new sanctions
regimes. Section 1 of the Sanctions Act enables sanctions
regulations to be made for the purposes of compliance with
United Nations obligations and other international obligations,aswell as for a number of other purposes which include:
promotingcompliance with international human rights law
and respect for humanrights...or promoting respect for
democracy, the rule of law

and good governance.""What is being done and why?
7.1.
HMG seeks to champion human rights, good governanceand the rule of law. Serious human rights violations byState actors, and similar conduct by non-State actors, leads
tounstable and less prosperous societies. Such conduct
perpetuates
violent conflict, creates a world where terrorism
flourishes and where
democratic institutions are weakened.
It has a devastating impact on
individuals and places thesafety of individuals andsocieties at risk.
Successfully deterring such conduct would help create fairer
and more just societies, which support the long-term global
conditions most conducive to security, economic growth and thesafety of all.
7.2

This instrument will enable HMG to designate persons who are involved incertain activities which, had they been carried out by or on behalf of a State
within the territory of that State, would amount to a serious violation by
State of certain human rights.

that

These are:an individual’s right to life;
an individual’s right not to be subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman ordegrading treatment or punishment; andan individual’s right to be free from slavery, not to be held in servitude or
required to perform forced or compulsory labour.
Such persons are able to be designated for the purpose of a travel ban or an
asset freeze. The designation of such persons is intended to deter, andprovide accountability for, such activities. The activities could be carried out
by a State or a non-State actor. "(emphasis added)
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/680/pdfs/uksiem_20200680_en.pdf; andThe Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018
WHEREAS, section 1 of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 states, inter alia:"(1) An appropriate Minister may make sanctions regulations wherethat Minister considers that it is appropriate to make theregulations (c)for a purpose within subsection (2).
(2)
A purpose is within this subsection if the appropriate Ministermaking the regulations considers that carrying out that purpose

would (f)provide accountability for or be a deterrent to grossviolations of human rights, or otherwise promote(i)compliance with international human rights law, or(ii)
respect for human rights,(g)promote compliance with international humanitarian law,(i)
promote respect for democracy, the rule of law and good
governance." (emphasis added)-https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2018/13/section/1 ; andAllegation of an agenda of false information as to the necessity, effectiveness,reasonableness, safe, proportionate or use of non-pharmaceutical and pharmaceuticalmeasures
WHEREAS, there is an agenda of false information as to the necessity, effectiveness,reasonableness, safe, proportionate or use of non-pharmaceutical and pharmaceutical measures
such as so-called "lockdowns", "social distancing", "quarantining" testing equipment andwearing of face coverings/masks and of the use of so-called "COVID-19 vaccines" to manage
the spread of the so-called "SARS-CoV-2 virus".; andAllegation that no Public Health Emergency exists in the UK.
WHEREAS, no such Public Health Emergency exists in the UK. For example, the Euromomo
evidence has consistently shown no medical emergency at any time from January 2020 to May
2021.
- https://www.euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps/; andAllegation of an agenda of false information as to there being a true "Pandemic".
WHEREAS, there is an agenda of false information as to there being a true “pandemic”
requiring emergency safety measures and legislation of any kind involving any kind ofrestrictions on liberty and or free movements; andAllegation that there is a lack of proof that a disease called "COVID-19" exists.
WHEREAS, there is lack of evidence that a disease called COVID-19 exists. According to theWorld Health Organisation ("WHO"), "Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is an infectious
disease caused by a newly discovered coronavirus". However, the genome sequence for SARSCoV-2, released in January 2020, proved that the test to identify its presence was created in theabsence of virus samples. -See Eurosurveillance - "Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019nCoV)byreal-timeRT-PCRhttps://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/15607917.ES.2020.25.3.2000045"; andAllegation of lack of proof of existence of a virus called "SARS-CoV-2".
WHEREAS, there is no virus isolate of SARS-CoV-2 which is exists. The genome sequencefor SARS-CoV-2, released in January 2020, proved that the test to identify its presence wascreated in the absence of virus samples. It is therefore contended that no virus isolate of SARSCoV 2 exists, and that a disease called COVID-19 has not caused excess deaths in the UK. ;andEvidence of lack of proof of existence of a virus called "SARS-CoV-2"
WHEREAS, Freedom of Information requests both here in the UK and globally have revealed
that healthcare institutions and governments and science institutions confirm that they have noevidence that a pure isolate of the virus exists.
- "FOIs reveal that health/science institutions around the world have no record of SARS-COV2
isolation/purification,anywhere,ever"FluorideFree
Peelhttps://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/fois-reveal-that-health-science-institutions-around-the-worldhave-no-record-of-sars-cov-2-isolation-purification/; andWHEREAS, the CDC, the WHO, the Doherty Institute, John Hopkins University and Public
Health England, Boris Johnson, UK Prime Minister, have accepted that they are unable toprovide a sample of an isolated SARS-CoV-2 virus.
- "COVID-19 Evidence of a Global Fraud, Nov 2020, Iain Davis - https://offguardian.org/2020/11/17/covid19-evidence-of-global-fraud/; and; and
WHEREAS, Dr Anthony Molloy, reports, inter alia:"as a virus has not been isolated and the genetic sequence that theygenerated, is a 100% sequence identity match to humanchromosomes.

haveThen there is no target or gold standard for detection of a novel virus
which they
do not have or even proven to be the cause of the symptoms of the disease "Covid 19".
- "Scientific evidence based document, in relation to SARS-Cov2, its testing, method andtreatment. by Dr Anthony Molloy, 2nd August 2021; andEvidence that the RT-PCR test is not designed to be used as a diagnostic test:
WHEREAS, the inventor of the RT-PCR test, Kary Mullis stated,
only"you can find anything in anything. This is not to be used as diagnostic
for academic purposes". ; and

test,

but

of

the

WHEREAS, Dr Anthony Molloy, reports, inter alia:"The RT-PCR test used, only looks for a sequence match of only one(human chromosomes) gene sequences, not all four.
A positive test only requires the test to find one of the sequences.
Data shows a 0% possibility of a patient been found to have all fourat once.

sequencesSo, the target of the test is flawed with no gold standard. ""Scientific evidence based document, in relation to SARS-Cov2, its testing, method andtreatment. by Dr Anthony Molloy, 2nd August 2021 ; andEvidence that the PCR test is abused via cycles of amplification producing false positive
results.
WHEREAS, additionally, tests can come out positive or negative, simply on the number ofcycles of amplification is being run for.
"All samples will come out positive if ran for over 45 cycles.
There is not a world wide standard threshold and it has been open toabuse fromthe start of the pandemic to make cases go up or down as desired, driven by the cycle
threshold.""Scientific evidence based document, in relation to SARS-Cov2, its testing, method andtreatment. by Dr Anthony Molloy, 2nd August 2021 ; andEvidence that the RT-PCR test is "not fit for purpose."
WHEREAS, Dr Anthony Molloy, reports, inter alia:
As such, a landmark legal ruling in Portugal upheld a decision from a
court, to find that the Covid RT-PCR test are not fit for
purpose."lower"Scientific evidence based document, in relation to SARS-Cov2, its testing, method andtreatment. by Dr Anthony Molloy, 2nd August 2021 and "Landmark legal ruling finds that
Covid tests are not fit for purpose. So what do the MSM do? They ignore it." RT, Nov.2020,
Peter Andrews - https://www.rt.com/op-ed/507937-covid-pcr-test-fail/; andEvidence that the PCR test is withdrawn by the WHO and the CDC for producing"meaningless" results.
WHEREAS, the WHO and CDC are withdrawing all PCR testing tools for SARS-CoV-2, due
to the fact that the results from these devices are meaningless.
- "The Who Confirms that the Covid-19 PCR test is Flawed: Estimates of "Positive Cases" aremeaningless. The lockdown has no scientific basis" Global Research Canada, July 2021,
Professor Michel Chossudovsky. https://www.globalresearch.ca/nucleic-acid-testingtechnologies-use-polymerase-chain-reaction-pcr-detection-sars-cov-2/5739959.
WHEREAS, see also: "Lab Alert: Stop Using Innova SARS-COV-2 Antigen Rapid Qualitative
test." 11th June 2021 from the CDC.
https://www.cdc.gov/csels/dls/locs/2021/06-11-2021-lab-alert-Innova_SARS-CoV2_Antigen_Test.html.; andEvidence of lack of proof that a disease called "COVID-19" is fatal/highly dangerous

WHEREAS, on 3rd March 2020, the UK Government scientific advisor echoed the Prime
Minister, when he said:"Let me be absolutely clear that for the overwhelming majority of people
who
contract the "virus", this will be a mild disease from which they
will speedily and fully
recover as we've already seen."
The World Health Organisation has stated that most people diagnosed with COVID-19 will
recover without the need for any medical treatment; andEvidence that the "threat" from the "virus" was officially downgraded from a HCID toa NOID by the UK Government on 13th March 2020.
WHEREAS, in line with the advice of the UK Government scientific advisor cited above, on
13/03/2020, the threat from the virus was officially downgraded from a HCID to a NOID by
the UK Government and the details on the same published on the UK Government website High consequence infectious diseases (HCID) - Gov.uk (www.gov.uk); andWHEREAS, it is highly significant that COVID-19 is not a High Consequence Infectious
Disease (HCID) in the UK according to UK Government’s official guidance issued on 19
March 2020 and accessed 24 May 2021 by https://www.gov.uk/guidance/high-consequenceinfectious-diseases-hcid. ;andAllegation of false information against alternative treatments for COVID-19 symptoms
WHEREAS, it appears that there is an agenda of false information against alternative
treatments for COVID-19 type symptoms including, for example Ivermectin. by deliberate
suppression of the effectiveness of Ivermectin as prophylaxis and treatment of SARS-CoV-2,
despite the existence of large amounts of clinical data compiled and presented by esteemed,highly qualified, experienced medical doctors and scientists, including Dr Tess Lawrie and
BIRD in the UK. The Indian Bar Association referenced the peer-reviewed publications andevidence compiled by the ten-member Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC)
group and the 65-member British Ivermectin Recommendation Development (BIRD) panel
headed by WHO consultant and meta-analysis expert, Dr. Tess Lawrie, UK in their Notice of
Liability to the WHO - https://indianbarassociation.in/press-releases/ ; andWHEREAS, issuing statements in social media and mainstream media, thereby influencing
the public against the use of Ivermectin and attacking the credibility of acclaimed
bodies/institutes and individuals advocating for the use of Ivermectin is causing unnecessary
suffering, harm, loss, injury and or death; andDuty of care to inform the public and individuals that severe illness and death as a resultof SARS-CoV-2 are rare and preventable and are treatable in the vast majority of men,
women and children
WHEREAS, you have a duty to inform each living man, woman and child that severe illness
and death as a result of SARS-CoV-2 are rare and preventable and are treatable in the vast
majority of men, women and children including pregnant women, new mothers, breastfeeding
women, children and young adults, by the administration of an array of safe and repurposed
drugs such as Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine; andAllegation that the UK population are being denied the use and availability of alternative
treatments for COVID-19 symptoms.
WHEREAS, the UK population are being denied the use and availability of alternative
treatments for Covid-19 type symptoms. Denying the use and availability of alternative
treatments is in breach of an individual's fundamental Right to Health as set out in theInternational treaties ; andEvidence that Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine are effective for prevention,
treatment and cure of illness and of COVID-19 symptoms.
WHEREAS much scientific peer-reviewed literature is available and which shows the benefitsof using such drugs as Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine for prevention, treatment, and cureof illness and symptoms associated with COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2 infection.
Please see https://c19ivermectin.com/ and https://c19hcq.com/, https://c19study.com,
https://metahcq.com, https://hcqtrial.com, https://covexit.com, https://aapsonline.org,
https://americasfrontlinedoctors.com ; andWHEREAS, a 70% reduction in mortality has been demonstrated in a comparative study
between countries allowed access to Hydroxychloroquine and countries that have denied
Hydroxychloroquine access to their citizens - https://hcqtrial.com/; andWHEREAS, where Ivermectin was used in India, the most prominent examples include theareas of Delhi, Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, and Goa where cases dropped 98%, 97%, 94%, and86%, respectively. By contrast, Tamil Nadu opted out of Ivermectin. As a result, their cases
skyrocketed and rose to the highest in India. Tamil Nadu deaths increased ten-fold.
-https://thedesertreview.com/news/national/invermectin-obliterates-97-percent-of-delhicases/article_6a3be6b2-c31f-11eb-836d-2722d2325a08.html; andWHEREAS, Tamil Nadu opted out of Ivermectin. As a result, their cases skyrocketed and roseto the highest in India. Tamil Nadu deaths increased ten-fold.
-https://thedesertreview.com/news/national/invermectin-obliterates-97-percent-of-delhicases/article_6a3be6b2-c31f-11eb-836d-2722d2325a08.html;
Evidence of Early Treatment protocols for COVID-19 symptoms
WHEREAS, Professor Peter A. McCullough, M.D., M.P.H. Vice Chief of Internal Medicine,
Baylor University Medical Centre is a world expert in the early treatment of Covid-19 illness.
Prof McCullough's peer-reviewed protocol on the early treatments for Covid-19 illness was
published in the American Medical Journal on 7th August 2020, entitled "Pathophysiological
Basis and Rationale for Early Outpatient Treatment of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) Infection".
.-https://www.amjmed.com/action/showPdf?pii=S0002-9343%2820%2930673-2. His booklet
on"EarlyOutpatient
TreatmentsofCovid-19"
can
be
read
here:
https://aapsonline.org/covidpatientguide/; andWHEREAS, Professor Peter A. McCullough, M.D., M.P.H. Vice Chief of Internal Medicine,Baylor University Medical Centre was a lead witnesses at a US Homeland Security Senate
Hearing on 19th November, 2020, entitled: "Early Outpatient Treatment: An Essential Part ofa Covid-19 Solution.
-https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/hearings/early-outpatient-treatment-an-essential-part-of-acovid-19-solution.
-Professor
McCollough's
testimony
can
be
read
here:
https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Testimony-McCullough-2020-11-19.pdf.
WHEREAS, Professor Harvey Risch, M.D., PH.D, Professor of Epidemiology, Yale
University was a lead witness at a US Homeland Security Senate Hearing on 19th November,
2020, entitled: "Early Outpatient Treatment: An Essential Part of a Covid-19 Solution".
-https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/hearings/early-outpatient-treatment-an-essential-part-of-acovid-19-solution.
Professor
Risch's
testimony
can
be
read
https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Testimony-Risch-2020-11-19.pdf,

here:

WHEREAS, George C. Fareed, M.D.Medical Director and Family Medicine Specialist
Pioneers Medical Center, also gave evidence to the Sentate.
-https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/hearings/early-outpatient-treatment-an-essential-part-of-acovid-19-solution.
-Dr
Fareed's
testimony
can
be
read
https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Testimony-Fareed-2020-11-19.pdf.

here:

WHEREAS, Ashish K. Jha, M.D., M.P.H.Dean of the School of Public Health Brown
University also gave evidence to the Senate.
-https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/hearings/early-outpatient-treatment-an-essential-part-of-acovid-19-solution.
Dr
Jha'sTestimony
can
be
read
here
https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Testimony-Jha-2020-11-19.pdf:-

WHEREAS, a transcript of the Hearing can be accessed here: https://www.cspan.org/video/?478169-1/senate-hearing-covid-19-outpatient-treatment HYPERLINK ; andWHEREAS, Dr Vladimir Zelenko, M.D. has created the highly effective and successful"Zelenko protocol" for the treatment of Covid-19 illness. Dr Zelenko's study, the first to include
risk
stratification,
can
be
found
here:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924857920304258; andEvidence of COVID-19 Medical Network Limited's concerns
WHEREAS, the Covid-19 Medical Network Limited, sent a letter to Adjunct Professor John
Skerritt, Deputy Secretary, Health Products Regulation Group, in Australia stating, inter alia:

"We are writing to express our concerns regarding the role of the Therapeutics andGoods Administration (TGA) in banning
Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) for the use in Covid19 illness
presentations and thereby criminalising its use by doctors in this setting.
1. The Unwarranted Banning of an Effective Therapeutic
We contend that the decision to specifically ban Hydroxychloroquine(HCQ) as atherapy used in combination with other agents, effectively making it unavailable for doctors
to utilise to treat early Covid-19
illness, was unwarranted and did not reflect an adequate
appraisal of the available medical literature regarding the safety and efficacy of
HCQ.
2. Excessive and Inappropriate Sanctions and Criminal consequencesof HCQ in the treatment of Early Covid Illness.

for the Use

The risk of serious sanctions or criminal convictions for doctors now
legislated
for in various legislatures for the use of HCQ in the setting of
early covid illness are theresult of decisions made by the TGA... This is a serious encroachment on the rights of citizens
and an unnecessary interference in the doctor-patient relationship by governments. The
result of these excessive provisions has resulted in undue consequences on
many patients as well as doctors.
3. A failure to review the available evidence regarding the effectivenessof Hydroxychloroquine for use in Early Covid Illness.

and safety

We contend that the decision to ban Hydroxychloroquine, and thereby
deny..
access to well-evidenced and effective treatments for early covid illness, were based on an
inadequate review of the medical
literature and an inaccurate and erroneous reading of
the available evidence.
4. We contend, based on international evidence and experience, thattheconsequences of the decisions by the TGA to ban HCQ have had serious
negative
consequences on the health and well-being of many Australian citizens and may have directly
contributed to the deaths of patients."; andEvidence of Notice of Liability issued to the WHO Chief Scientist, accusing her of causing
deaths of Indian citizens by misleading them about Ivermectin
WHEREAS, the Indian Bar Association ("IBA") sued WHO Chief Scientist Dr. Soumya
Swaminathan on 25th May 2021, accusing her in a 71-point Notice of Liability of causing thedeaths of Indian citizens by misleading them about Ivermectin. Point 56 states:"that your misleading tweet on May 10, 2021, against the use of Ivermectin had theeffect of the State of Tamil Nadu withdrawing
Ivermectin from the protocol on May 11,
2021, just a day after the
Tamil Nadu government had indicated the same for thetreatment of COVID-19 patients."
https://science.thewire.in/health/tn-revises-protocols-leaves-out-Ivermectin-for-covidpatients/. - https://indianbarassociation.in/press-releases/ ; andWHEREAS, Dr Swaminathan was called out for her malfeasance in discrediting Ivermectinto preserve the EUA for the vaccine and pharmaceutical industry. Point 52 reads"It seems you have deliberately opted for deaths of people to achieve
yourulterior goals, and this is sufficient grounds for criminal prosecution against you."- https://indianbarassociation.in/press-releases/ ;and
WHEREAS, Advocate Dipali Ohja, lead attorney for the Indian Bar Association, threatened
criminal prosecution against Dr. Swaminathan "for each death" caused by her acts ofcommission and omission. ; andWHEREAS, Advocate Dipali Ojha clarified the nature of the planned action by stating:"The Indian Bar Association has warned action under section 302 etc.
oftheIndian Penal Code against Dr. Soumya Swaminathan and others, for murder of each person
dying due to obstruction in treatmentof COVID-19 patient effectively by Ivermectin.
Punishment under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is death
imprisonment."

penaltyorlife- https://indianbarassociation.in/press-releases/ ; andWHEREAS, Advocate Dipali Ohja, lead attorney for the Indian Bar Association accused
Swaminathan of misconduct by using her position as a health authority to further the agendaof special interests to maintain an EUA for the lucrative vaccine industry. The brief accused
the WHO of being complicit in a vast disinformation campaign. Point 61 states"The FLCCC and BIRD have shown exemplary courage in building aformidable
force to tackle the challenge of disinformation, resistance and rebuke from pharm lobbies
and powerful health interests likeWHO, NIH, CDC, and regulators like the US FDA." and- https://indianbarassociation.in/press-releases/
Allegations by experts that there is a lack of scientific evidence supporting face coverings
and lockdowns.
WHEREAS, many experts highlight the lack of science supporting face coverings andlockdowns. The following are merely examples of over 200,000 scientists, doctors and medical
practitioners raising concerns:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

America's Children's Health Defence Fund
America's Frontline Doctors
Association of American Physicians and Surgeons
Australia Covid-19 Medical Network
British Ivermectin Recommendation Development (BIRD) panel
Canadian Covid Care Alliance
Canadian Physicians for Science and Truth
Doctors for Truth in the Netherlands - 3500 doctors and 87,000 nurses
Doctors4CovidEthics - 160 doctors - Open Letter to Physicians

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Doctors for Truth in Spain - 2562 doctors
Doctors for Truth in the UK
Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance - 1283 doctors
Germany's Doctors for Information - over 500 doctors
Great Barrington Declaration signatories - 57, 000 medics/scientists
Indian Bar Association
Israeli People's Committee
Kenya Catholic Doctors Association
Lawyers for Liberty, UK
New Zealand Doctors
Additional doctors and nurses coalitions from France, Ireland, Italy, Brazil ; andCase law on "focused protection" - an approach sanction in the Kimber case, 27th
September 2021.
WHEREAS, in the case of Kimber, the court referred to the Great Barrington Declaration's"Focused Protection" approach and held that:"Those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume
normal.

life

asSchools and universities should be open for in-person teaching.
Extracurricular activities, such as sports, should be resumed. Young low- risk adults
should work normally, rather than from home. Restaurants and other business should open.
Arts, music, sport and other cultural activities should resume."- Kimber v Sapphire Coast Community Aged Care Ltd (C2021/2676) Australian Fair Work
Commission, Sydney, 27th September 2021; andWHEREAS, preventing asymptomatic infection is not a viable rationale for promoting,authorising, coercing or administering the so-called COVID-19 vaccines to living men andwomen, women who are pregnant or new mothers, breastfeeding women, children, unborn
children and babies;- see Doctors for Covid Ethics https://odysee.com/@Doctors4CovidEthics:d/Vaccine_RiskBenefit.; andWHEREAS, preventing asymptomatic infection is not a viable rationale for the wearing offace masks, testing, quarantining or "locking down" of asymptomatic, healthy individuals.; andWHEREAS, a comprehensive study of 9,899,828 people in China found that asymptomatic
individuals testing positive for COVID-19 never infected others.; andWHEREAS, in the case of Kimber, the court stated, inter alia:"[158] There have now been many studies around the world that havethe rate of transmission of COVID in schools.
One of the largest studies on COVID transmission in schools in thelookedUnitedatStates, undertaken by Duke Clinical Research Institute, looked at more
90,000 students and teachers in North Carolina over a 9 week
period.

than

Given the rate of transmission in the community at that time, it was
expected
that there would be around 900 cases in the schools,
howeverwhen
researchers
conducted contact tracing to identify school-related transmissions, they identified only 32
cases.
This is one of many publicly available studies that have found similar
results,
that being that transmission in schools is lower than community transmissioninthecommunity in which the school is based";- Kimber v Sapphire Coast Community Aged Care Ltd (C2021/2676) Australian Fair Work
Commission, Sydney, 27th September 2021; andWHEREAS, in contrast, the papers cited by the Centre for Disease Control and Prevention("the CDC") in the USA to justify claims of asymptomatic transmission are based on
hypothetical models, presenting assumptions and estimates rather than evidence. ; andWHEREAS, In the case of Kimber v the court stated, inter alia:"[132] The risk of spreading COVID only arises with a person who has
This should be apparent and obvious.

COVID.

There is no risk associated with a person who is unvaccinated and does not have
COVID, notwithstanding the misleading statements made bypoliticians
thattheunvaccinated are a significant threat to the vaccinated, supposedly justifying "locking out theunvaccinated fromsociety" and denying them the ability to work".
- Kimber v Sapphire Coast Community Aged Care Ltd (C2021/2676) Australian Fair Work
Commission, Sydney, 27th September 2021; andEvidence that vulnerability to death from COVID-19 is more than a thousand-fold higher
in the old and infirm than the young.
WHEREAS, the Great Barrington Declaration states, inter alia:"..We know that vulnerability to death from COVID-19 is more than afold higher in the old and infirm than the young.
Indeed, for children, COVID-19 is less dangerous than many other harms,
influenza."; andthousandincluding

WHEREAS, the science is clear in that COVID-19 is less serious for those who are young andotherwise healthy compared to those who are elderly and/or who have co-morbidities. In otherwords, the risk of COVID-19 is far greater for those who are elderly or have co-morbidities.;andEvidence that Natural Immunity confers longer-lasting and stronger protection than
PfizerBioNTech's Covid-19 vaccine.

WHEREAS, the expert evidence shows that natural immunity to SARS-CoV-2 virus appears
to confer longer-lasting and stronger protection against COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2 infection,
symptomatic disease and hospitalisation from the Delta variant when compared to
PfizerBioNTech's two-dose "vaccine"-induced immunity. The general public are NOT being
informed of this evidence; andWHEREAS, in the case of Kimber, the court stated, inter alia:"[143] In a scientific brief prepared by the World Health Organisation
dated 10 May 2021 on COVID natural immunity, the WHO found that(WHO)"within four weeks following infection, 90-00% of individuals
infected with [COVID] virus develop detectable neutralising
antibodies."'- Kimber v Sapphire Coast Community Aged Care Ltd (C2021/2676) Australian Fair Work
Commission, Sydney, 27th September 2021; andWHEREAS, in the case of Kimber, the court stated, inter alia:"[144] The science is clear that those who have recovered from COVID haveleast the same level of protection from COVID as a person who has been vaccinated.

at

There can be absolutely no legitimate basis, then, for mandating
this group of people"

for

vaccination- Kimber v Sapphire Coast Community Aged Care Ltd (C2021/2676) Australian Fair Work
Commission, Sydney, 27th September 2021
WHEREAS, the NHS and the UK Government, its actors, including schools, teachers andothers are telling the general public that the COVID-19 vaccines offer the "best" protection
against COVID-19 symptoms. This is clearly blatantly untrue and not evidence-based or
supported with the scientific research conducted in this field. Unlike many other vaccinations
such as those used to stop the spread of tetanus, yellow fever and smallpox, COVID
vaccinations are not designed to stop COVID-19. They are designed to reduce the symptomsof the virus for the individual's benefit only - not for the benefit of any other person. However,a fully vaccinated person can contract and transmit COVID-19; andWHEREAS, it is accepted by the UK Government that the so-called COVID-19 vaccines do
not prevent transmission of COVID-19 nor do they prevent catching SARS-CoV-2 virus.
Notwithstanding this, the UK Government, the NHS and others are telling the general publicthat the COVID-19 vaccines "prevent transmission" and are introducing so-called Vaccine
passports based on the concept that someone who has been vaccinated poses no risk to thosearound them, which is clearly untrue; andEvidence of Relative Risk Reduction and Absolute Risk Reduction
WHEREAS, the population of the UK are being informed by the UK Government, it's agentsand assigns that the so-called COVID-19 vaccines reduce the risk of spreading SARS-CoV-2.

In fact, the relative risk reduction ("the RRR") of the PfizerBioNTech BN16b26 is 95.1% (CI
90.0%-97.6%, p.0.016) and the absolute risk reduction ("the ARR") is only 0.7% (CI 0.59% 0.83%, p<0,001); andWHEREAS, the COVID-19 vaccines do not eliminate the risk of COVID-19 disease, giventhat those who are vaccinated can catch and transmit COVID-19. What is clear, however, isthat the vaccine is not an effective control measure to deal with transmission of COVID-19 byitself.; andWHEREAS, the report from Public Health England dated 3rd September 2021, shows that
67% of inpatient COVID-19 deaths were in double-jabbed, fully "vaccinated" people. The
report shows that the "vaccinated" people account for 56% of COVID-19 cases, 61% of
hospitalisations, and 77% of deaths which are 11 times higher than in September 2020 when
there were no people treated with the so-called COVID-19 vaccinations; andWHEREAS, the recent report from the Israeli Ministry of Health shows that the number ofindividuals in hospital with SARS-CoV-2 symptoms is higher in the vaccinated patients thanin the unvaccinated patients; andWHEREAS, in the case of Kimber, the court stated, inter alia:"[134] There is nothing controversial in stating that vaccines do noteliminate
the risk of COVID, given that those who are vaccinated can
catch
and
transmit
COVID.
By way of one example, a report issued by the Centres for Disease Control
andPrevention (CDC) in the United States on 6b August 2021, looked at an outbreak of COVID
in Massachusetts during July 2021.
Of the 469 COVID cases identified, 74% were fully vaccinated.
Of this group, 79% were symptomatic.
In total, 5 people required hospitalisation and of these, 4 were fully

vaccinated.

This is not an anomaly - the data from many countries and other partsoftheUnited States provides a similar picture, although obtaining
similardata fromthe United States will now be problematic given the decision by the CDC on 1 May 2021 tocease monitoring and recording
breakthrough case information unless the person is
hospitalised ordies.
What is clear, however, is that the vaccine is not an effective control
deal with transmission of COVID by itself.";

measure to- Kimber v Sapphire Coast Community Aged Care Ltd (C2021/2676) Australian Fair Work
Commission, Sydney, 27th September 2021; andEvidence of the Number of people needed to be treated in order to prevent one infection
WHEREAS, the UK population are not being informed that the number of people that need tobe treated with the so-called COVID-19 vaccines in order to prevent one infection is 142 people(CI 122-170).; andAllegation that COVID-19 vaccines do not meet the legal definition of "Human
Medicine" under the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 nor are they "vaccines" but are"Medical Devices" which should be regulated under the Medical Devices Regulations
WHEREAS, the so-called COVID 19 vaccines as a "Human Medicine" underthe Human Medicines Regulations 2012. They do not meet the legal definition as set out
therein; andWHEREAS, the so-called "COVID-19 vaccines" are incorrectly described as "vaccines". A
conventional "vaccine" works as follows:"Typically, a conventional vaccine injects a very small dose of the isolated
component or bacterium into the body, which then elicits an immune response.

viral

The bacterium or virus is then dissolved and disposed of by the
immuneprogramming it how to trigger if it sees the same threat in the future."system,- Dr Anthony Molloy "Scientific evidence based document, in relation to SARS-COV2, itstesting method and treatment", 2nd August 2021. The so-called "COVID-19 vaccines" are nota "conventional vaccine" on this definition; andWHEREAS, the mRNA vaccines does not send in a live protein, but only a code (message) to the ribosomes to produce the SARS-COV2 spike protein, based upon the"generated" gene sequence code as detailed above. Dr Anthony Molloy states, inter alia"[the mRNA vaccines] are not conventional vaccines (as in thedefinition above),these are genetic experiments, rolled out over mass populations,term safety data.

without any long

The body can only produce proteins in the ribosomes, based on its DNA code via
the mRNA communications system; however, this new mRNA
"vaccine" does not send ina live protein, but only a code
(message) to the ribosomes to produce the SARS-COV2 spike
protein,based
upon the "generated" gene sequence code as detailed
above."- Dr Anthony Molloy "Scientific evidence based document, in relation to SARS-COV2, itstesting method and treatment", 2nd August 2021; andWHEREAS, the mRNA vaccines are more correctly and accurately described as experimental
nucleoside-modified messenger RNA (mRNA) gene therapies/injections and or viral vector
injections which are legally definable as a "Medical Device" and not a "vaccine" or a "Human
Medicine".; andWHEREAS, the Pfizer BioNTech and Moderna so-called "COVID-19 vaccines" are, in fact,
legally defined as "Medical Devices" and not legally definable as a "Vaccine". It is the expert
opinion of a number of world experts in the field of nanotechnology that these experimental

gene treatments are in fact a nanotechnological device of nanomedicine. It appears that all the
tests for a medical device were not made in accordance with EC 2017/746 and EC 2017/745,
ISO 10993 and ISO 13485; andWHEREAS, medical devices should be regulated under the Medical Devices Regulations
instead of being regulated as a "human medicine" under the Human Medicines Regulations[2012]; andAllegation that the general public are not being informed that that so-called "COVID-19
vaccines" employ novel and experimental nanotechnology - genetic engineering of thehuman cells
WHEREAS, the UK Government, the NHS, the media and others are not informing the UK
public that the Pfizer BioNTech and Moderna so-called "COVID-19 vaccines" employs noveland experimental nanotechnology in the form of a piece of synthetic mRNA code which
genetically engineers the cells in the human body to manufacture the "spike protein" of the socalled SARS-CoV-2 virus, permanently altering the genetic composition of a human cell; andthat the synthetic mRNA code is encased in a lipid nanoparticle envelope to ensure that the
typically unstable mRNA nanotechnology is delivered to the cell of the human body without
disintegrating, but that this is not guaranteed; andEvidence that the mRNA "vaccines" are synthetic mRNA codes manufacturing the spike
protein of the SARS-CoV-2 virus
WHEREAS, the UK Government's Green Book, Chapter 14a states that the mRNA vaccinesare "nucleoside-modified messenger RNA" as follows:"The Pfizer BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines are
modified messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines."; andnucleoside-

WHEREAS, the UK Government's Green Book, Chapter 14a states that the mechanism of themRNA vaccines is to "use the pathogen's genetic code". This then "exploits" the host cells totranslate the code and make the target spike protein, as follows:"mRNA vaccines use the pathogen's genetic code as the vaccine: thisthenexploits the host cells to translate the code and make the target
spike protein.
This protein then acts as an intracellular antigen to stimulate the immune response.
(Amanet et al, 2020)."; andWHEREAS, Dr Anthony Molloy states:"a single injection consists of 40 trillion mRNA messages, which willcontinually
instruct the ribosomes to produce a foreign spike protein (this is subsequently found to be atoxin to the body).
Each mRNA gene can produce numerous spike proteins."- Dr Anthony Molloy,"Scientific evidence based document, in relation to SARS-COV2, itstesting method and treatment", 2nd August 2021; andAllegation of the dangers of the spike protein to the human body
WHEREAS, the lipid nano-particles (LNP)s cause human cells to manufacture synthetic spike
proteins throughout the body that are more dangerously pathogenetic than the original SARSCOV-2 spike protein, more quickly spread in greater numbers inside the body than a naturalinfection; causing, often, a large bump in excess mortality concomitant with vaccination
rollouts.; andWHEREAS, the spike protein may invade and lives in neural/brain tissue, infecting neurons
and causing neurotropism. The S1 sub-unit of the spike protein enters the parenchymal tissueof the brain in murine models. The brain’s endothelial cells attempt to hide the spike protein in
the brain capillary glycocalyx, which can lead to degradation of the glycocalyx, dysfunction oftheblood-brain
barrier(BBB)
andcerebraledema
http://www.kathydopp.info/COVIDinfo/Vaccines/VaccineADE .; andWHEREAS, the UK Government's Green Book, Chapter 14a states that:"Both the Moderna mRNA-1273 and the Pfizer BioNTech COVID-19
vaccines have been generated entirely in vitro." ; andBNT162b2

WHEREAS, the UK Government's Green Book, Chapter 14a states that the mRNA vaccines
are formulated in lipid nanoparticles - which are taken up by the host cells as follows:"Both the Moderna mRNA-1273 and the Pfizer BioNTech COVID-19
BNT162b2
vaccines and are formulated in lipid nanoparticles which are taken up by the host cells.
(Vogel et al, 2020, Jackson et al,2020)." ;and
WHEREAS, Dr Anthony Molloy states:"It is still unknown how long the production of foreign proteins will last
it can be eliminated from the body.

for, or how

No empirical data is available on how it will affect the body long term."- Dr Anthony Molloy, "Scientific evidence based document, in relation to SARS-COV2, itstesting method and treatment", 2nd August 2021; andWHEREAS, Dr Anthony Molloy states, inter alia:"the same mRNA technology used in the previous animal trials in the
1990s,
found that all the animals died from Antibody Dependent Enhancement ("ADE") in thefollowing season or two, when challenged with the wild type Coronavirus.
The immune system is trained to attack anything with a similar profile
Coronavirus protein, including all of the organs and tissues
producingprotein from the mRNA code.

to
this

This is also known as Autoimmune Disease, Immune super priming,
interference, cytokine storm. See clinical trial paper - [13]".

viral

the
spike

- "Immunization with SARS Coronavirus Vaccines Leads to Pulmonary Immunopathology on
Challenge with the SARS virus." Chien-Te Tseng et al. 2012 PLOS ONE.https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0035421- Dr Anthony Molloy, "Scientific evidence based document, in relation to SARS-COV2, itstesting method and treatment", 2nd August 2021; andAllegation of false information regarding the biodistribution of the contents of the socalled "COVID-19 vaccines." and the failure of the MHRA to conduct a biodistribution
study, as required
WHEREAS, the UK Government's Green Book, Chapter 14a states that"mRNA is then normally degraded within a few days."; andWHEREAS, the MHRA failed in its obligation/duty to conduct a biodistribution study on
those who have been treated with the so-called COVID-19 vaccines and or has failed to publish
the findings of such a bio-distribution study. A biodistribution study is a study of what happens
to the vaccine after it is injected into the body.; andWHEREAS, however, the Japanese Regulators conducted a bio-distribution study on those
who have been treated with the so-called COVID-19 vaccines and found the spike proteins
manufactured by the vaccinated individual in every organ of the individual's body - particularly
concentrated in the ovaries and testes, raising deep concerns by world experts that this will leadto infertility and sterility; andEvidence of harm caused by biodistribution of the so-called "COVID-19 vaccines"
WHEREAS, a study in February 2021 found that only 25% of the lipid nanoparticles remains
in the shoulder muscle, with the remaining passing the lymphatics into the blood circulationand capillary system.
- SARS-COV2 mRNA Vaccine (BNT 162, PF-07302048) Pfizer (Confidential Study) Feb 2021
https://www.pmda.go.jp/drugs/2021/P20210212001/672212000_30300AMX00231_I100_1.p
df; and
Emergency temporary licence and authorisation only.
WHEREAS, the so-called COVID 19 Vaccines have been granted emergency temporary
licensing and authorisation under the emergency provisions of regulation 174 of the Human
Medicines Regulations 2012; andAllegation of incorrect use of regulation 174 of the Human Medicines Regulations 2012.
WHEREAS, the so-called COVID 19 Vaccines have been granted emergency temporary
licensing and authorisation under the emergency provisions of regulation 174 of the Human
Medicines Regulations 2012, on the basis that there is a Public Health Emergency; andWHEREAS, the so-called COVID 19 Vaccines have been granted emergency temporary
licensing and authorisation under the emergency provisions of regulation 174 of the Human

Medicines Regulations 2012, on the basis that there are no "available alternative treatments"
despite the evidence clearly demonstrating that there are indeed such "available alternative
treatments" (see below); andWHEREAS, without the temporary, emergency use authorisation granted in respect of theseso-called COVID-19 vaccines, these products would have to be withdrawn from the "market".
In the USA, for example, deaths in relation to other vaccines numbering as few as 50 (in acountry with a population in excess of 360 million) would cause withdrawal of the relevant
medication. Comparable provisions apply in the UK and in Europe. This too relates to informed
consent; andWHEREAS, Dr Lawrie’s Response Summary states, inter alia:"The MHRA has a responsibility to report the safety of vaccinestransparent process, which summarises safety data for the public.

througha

The agency should rapidly detect new side-effects to the vaccines, andtake any
necessary action to minimise risk to the individual through adding warnings, restricting or
suspending use of a product.
Dr Lawrie and her team would like to see the UK’s Yellow Card Reporting System
be fully transparent through providing age- andgender-stratified safety information, anddata reporting deaths orreactions occurring within specific timeframes.
Without this data, the public cannot give fully informed consent to taking the Covid19 vaccines if they are not fully aware of the risks.
Dr Lawrie is requesting alternative treatments to be used instead ofsuch as Ivermectin, whilst also calling for a complete overhaulof theSystem."vaccines
Yellow Card

https://theexpose.uk/2021/08/16/dr-tess-lawrie-responds-to-mhra-be-transparent-aboutvaccine-deaths-and-suspend-the-covid-19-vaccination-programme/; andDuty on the Secretary of State for Health in England to implement the advice of the ethics
committee - the Joint Committee on Vaccines and Immunisations (the "JCVI")
WHEREAS, the Health Protection (Vaccination) Regulations 2009 place a duty on the
Secretary of State for Health in England to ensure, so far as reasonably practical, that therecommendations of JCVI are implemented.; andAllegation of failure of the UK government to uphold its obligations to comply with the
Health Protection (Vaccination) Regulations 2009.
WHEREAS, the government is failing in its obligations to comply with these Regulations byoverturning the JCVI's advice; andEvidence of "grave concerns" about the emergency authorisation of so-called COVID-19
vaccines by the UK Medical Freedom Alliance.

WHEREAS, the UKMFA has sent an Open Letter to the MHRA in which they raise grave
concerns about this emergency authorisation, citing evidence of known and potential harms tochildren that may result and the serious ethical issues this decision raises. They state, inter alia:"Given that these vaccines will have virtually no benefit to themselves,itisprofoundly unethical and indefensible to vaccinate children,
especiallywithanexperimental vaccine using novel technology, inwhat to be a misguided attempt toprotect adults and achieve herd immunity.
We call on the MHRA to exercise caution and immediately reverse theirdecision:-https://www.ukmedfreedom.org/open-letters/ukmfa-urgent-open-letter-to-the-mhra-reemergency-authorisation-of-the-pfizer-covid-19-vaccine-for-children." - UK Medical
Freedom Alliance "Informed consent and Covid19 vaccines." ; andCall to the MHRA to halt the rollout of the COVID-19 vaccines due to Adverse Reactions.
WHEREAS, Dr Tess Lawrie, director at Evidence-based Medicine Consultancy Limited and
EbMC Squared CiC has written an updated report of the UK Yellow Card data for Covid-19
vaccines in a letter sent to CEO of the MHRA, Dr June Raine, dated 16th August 2021, urging
the agency to halt the rollout of the Covid-19 vaccines due to the continued increase in adverse
reactions and deaths. Dr Lawrie wrote:“As of 14th July, there have been 1,490 deaths reported postvaccination with
the COVID-19 vaccines. This constitutes 237 more deaths since our last report when werequested a halt to the rollout.
We are aware Yellow Card reports do not necessarily
imply causality,
as indicated in our previous report.
The MHRA itself, however, states that the purpose of the Yellow Cardsystem is tobe an early warning system that a medicine’s safety may
need further investigation andwhen urging doctors to report side- effects, you have been quoted as indicating that “Thereis no need to prove that the medicine caused the adverse reaction, just the suspicion
isgood enough”.
"With 1,490 deaths now reported post-vaccination with the COVID-19
these vaccines are clearly less safe than vaccines we have hitherto known.”

vaccines,

Death reports per dose of Covid-19 vaccines are approx. 29 times higher thaninfluenza vaccines.

for

The Covid-19 vaccines may be responsible for the Covid-labelled mortality this past
winter (at least 24,000 deaths) in England.
The vaccines are ineffective at reducing mortality.
Dr Lawrie urges the MHRA to suspend the Covid vaccine rollout in all
childrenand adults and halt all booster vaccines, including suspending
further trials in the UK. "https://theexpose.uk/2021/08/16/dr-tess-lawrie-responds-to-mhra-be-transparent-about-vaccine-deaths-and-suspend-the-covid-19-vaccination-programme
Evidence that vaccines are "unavoidably safe products."
WHEREAS, the Supreme Court of the United States decided that vaccine manufacturers
would be exempt from strict liability as vaccines are "unavoidably unsafe products" inBruesewitz v Wyeth (2010), https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-152.pdf;
andEvidence that the so-called COVID-19 vaccines are experimental and still in phase 2/3
clinical trials
WHEREAS, the so-called COVID-19 vaccines are experimental mRNA genetherapies/injections and or viral vector therapies/injections which are still in Phase 2/3 Clinical
trials which are not yet completed. The PfizerBioNTech so-called "COVID-19 vaccine" is stillin phase 2/3 clinical trials, due to complete by the 27th January 2023 - Pfizer Clinical Trial https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04368728; The Moderna so-called "COVID-19
vaccine" is still in clinical trial phase, due to complete by December 2023 - Moderna Clinical
Trial - https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03897881. The Astra Zeneca "Covid-19
vaccine" is still in clinical trial phase, due to complete by February 2023 - Astra Zeneca Trial https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04516746; andWHEREAS, the following information and "material risks" are not being provided to thegeneral public in order for them to be able to make a "fully
informed" decision to be injected with a COVID-19 Vaccine, including, but not limited to thefollowing necessary information:(a)the numbers of people with existing antibody immunity or
memorised T cell response to SARS-CoV-2 infection; and(b)the material risk of being infected with SARS-CoV-2; and(c)the material risk of having an asymptomatic infection with
SARS-CoV-2; and(d)the material risk of having a mild, or moderate, infection with
SARS-CoV-2; and(e)the material risk, if infected, of not being hospitalised with
SARS-CoV-2; and(f)the material risk, if infected, of being hospitalised with SARSCoV-2; and(g)the material risk of recovering from the SARS-CoV-2 infection;and(h)the material risk of dying from the SARS-CoV-2 infection; and(i)the material risk of suffering an adverse or serious adverse
reaction/event to the so-called "COVID-19 vaccines", including
material risk of disability, life-limiting disability, lifethreatening events and death; andthe

WHEREAS, the COVID-19 vaccines were not tested on certain age groups in phase 1 clinical
trials. As such, these age groups are being tested on for the first time in the ongoing phase 2/3
clinical trials. The UK Government's Green Book, Chapter 14a states: "The Pfizer vaccine wastested in healthy adults between the ages of 18-55 and 65-85 years in phase 1 studies." Thephase 1 trials did not therefore include children under the age of 18, adults between the ages of
55 and 65 and anyone over the age of 85 years of age; andWHEREAS, the UK Government's Green Book, Chapter 14a states: "The Moderna mRNA1273 vaccine was tested..in those aged 18-55...". The Moderna trial did therefore not include
children under the age of 18 or adults over the age of 55; andWHEREAS, the phase 1 clinical trial of the PfizerBioNTech so-called "COVID-19 vaccine"
was concerningly underpowered with only 1,131 12-15 year olds included in the study, over a
2 month clinical trial study period; andWHEREAS, the 2 month clinical trial study period is insufficient time in which to monitor
short-, medium-, and long-term safety data and outcomes. Therefore no-one knows theoutcomes of concern such as severe disease, hospitalisation and death as these were notassessed in the clinical trials; andWHEREAS, the COVID-19 vaccines phase 1 trials did not include adults who were deemed
to be "not healthy". Therefore, individuals with certain health conditions were not tested inphase 1 trials and are therefore "live human subjects" for the purpose of the ongoing phase 2/3
clinical trials; andWHEREAS, the UK Government's Green Book, Chapter 14a states:"the BNT162b2 product [the Pfizer BioNTech so-called "COVID-19
vaccine"]at a 30 ug dose was chosen by Pfizer as the lead candidate in phase 2/3 trials. (Walsh et al,2020)". ; andWHEREAS, the UK Government's Green Book, Chapter 14a states:"the Moderna mRNA-1273 vaccine was tested at three dose levels in
those aged
18-55 and the 100 ug dose chosen for phase 3 study.
(Jackson et al, 2020).". ; andWHEREAS, however, the evidence shows that the NHS is offering varying doses of the
PfizerBioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine as well as mixing doses from different
COVID-19 vaccines, which is in direct contravention of the phase 2/3 clinical trial protocol
and constitutes a further "live human experiment" as mixing doses was not part of the phase 1,
2 or 3 clinical trials. Informed consent is not being obtained to consent to mixing of doses andmixing of COVID-19 vaccines; andWHEREAS, neither Pfizer BioNTech or Moderna are required as standard to evaluate theirproducts' impact on fertility and have not done so with the so-called COVID-19 vaccines.
However, the general public are not being informed of this fact nor of the serious risk ofinfertility and sterility posed by the so-called COVID-19 vaccines; andWHEREAS, the evidence shows that there are potential cross-reactivity of vaccine-induced
antibodies to virus spike protein, with the placental protein syncytin-1, which could cause
infertility, spontaneous abortions, menstrual problems.; andWHEREAS, there are a number of reports globally and in the UK of women who have beentreated with the so-called COVID-19 vaccines, as well as those who have not been treated buthave been in close proximity to those who have been treated, experiencing and developing
immediate and dramatic changes in their menstrual cycle upon treatment with the so-called
COVID-19 vaccinations; andWHEREAS, there are a number of reports globally and in the UK of pregnant womenexperiencing a spontaneous abortion following treatment with the so-called COVID-19
vaccinations, as well as breast-feeding infants dying following the treatment of their motherwith the so-called COVID-19 vaccinations; andWHEREAS, Dr Anthony Molloy states, inter alia:"Current D-dimer tests have shown evidence of irreversible heart damage
micro-clotting of 62% of test subjects within a week of"vaccination".

through

These platelet blood clot formations are microscopic and huge in number
all of the capillaries.

through

They are so small that they will not appear in any MRI, Angiogram, or
CT scans.
Vessels in the heart, brain, spinal cord, and lungs can't
regenerate and are irreversibly
damaged from these blocked capillaries.."- Dr Anthony Molloy, Molloy "Scientific evidence based document, in relation to SARSCOV2, its testing method and treatment", 2nd August 2021; andWHEREAS, the damage being produced as result of an individual being treated with theexperimental so-called "COVID-19 vaccines" is causing more severe COVID-19 illness on
exposure to SARS-CoV-2, other viruses and pathogens, post-vaccination. COVID-19 victims
die due to a cytokine storm, the body's immune system attacking the body's organs. ; andWHEREAS, Vaccines can cause antibody dependent enhancement (ADE) resulting in aquicker cytokine storm, i.e., more severe illness, when a vaccinated person is next exposed to
the wild virus. Biologist Josh Mitteldorf explains ADE or pathogenic priming.
- http://www.kathydopp.info/COVIDinfo/Vaccines/JMitteldorf; andWHEREAS, prior attempts to develop coronavirus vaccines killed most test animals or madethem severely ill when subsequently encountering the wild virus. Biologist Josh Mitteldorf
explains ADE or pathogenic priming.
- http://www.kathydopp.info/COVIDinfo/Vaccines/JMitteldorf; andWHEREAS, ADE occurs more in elderly or high-risk persons, in persons who had previous
influenza vaccines or were previously infected and recovered from the SARS-COV-2 virus.
Informed consent requires disclosing the risk of ADE- http://www.kathydopp.info/COVIDinfo/Vaccines/VaccineADE; andWHEREAS, the following experts have demanded that this clinical trial be shut down withimmediate effect and have warned that there is no reversing or detoxing from these "vaccines".
Experts have warned that all recipients are expected to die from one of the following potentialissues within 1-9 years of "vaccine" delivery:a)
ADE (Antibody Dependent Enhancement)b)Right sided heart failure within three years, through Pulmonary
Artery Hypertension, caused from blood clotting in thecapillaries, arteries and veinsc)
Blood clotting and coagulation from graphene oxidative stressd)Compromised immune system via an increase of specificantibodies and reduction of non-specific antibodies(e)
The body will create the new viral variants due to vaccination
damage(f)
Sterilisation of between 60-70% of the population";- Dr Anthony Molloy, "Scientific evidence based document, in relation to SARS-COV2, itstesting method
and treatment", 2nd August 2021;and .
WHEREAS, the following specialists are announcing these issues:
1)
Luc Montagnier
2)
Dr Sukarit Bhakti
3)
Professor Dolores Cahill
4)
Dr Geert Vanden Bossche
5)
Dr Mike Yeadon
6)
Dr Charles Hoffe
7)
Dr Louise Legendijk
8)
Dr Patrick Flynn
9)
Sir Professor John Bell10)Dr Judy Mikowitz;- Dr Anthony Molloy, "Scientific evidence based document, in relation to SARS-COV2, itstesting method
and treatment", 2nd August 2021;and
WHEREAS, the risk of Antibody Dependent Enhancement is confirmed in various UK
Government publications; andWHEREAS, the risk of Myocarditis is explored in a Report on "Myocarditis Adverse Eventsin the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) in Association with COVID19 Injectable Biological Products"
Authors Jessica Rose PhD, MSc, BSc, Peter A.McCullough MD, MPH. The Abstract states,inter alia:"Abstract:
Following the global rollout and administration of the Pfizer
Inc./BioNTech
BNT162b2 and Moderna mRNA-1273 vaccines on December 17, 2020, in the United States,and of the Janssen
Ad26.COV2.S product on April 1st, 2021, in an unprecedented
manner, hundreds of thousands of individuals have reported adverse
events(AEs) using the Vaccine Adverse Events Reports System(VAERS).
We used VAERS data to examine cardiac AEs, primarily myocarditis,
reported
following injection of the first or second dose of the COVID-19
injectable products.

Myocarditis rates reported in VAERS were significantly higher in youths between
the ages of 13 to 23 (p<0.0001) with ∼80% occurring inmales.
Within 8 weeks of the public offering of COVID-19 products to the 12-15-yearold
age group, we found 19 times the expected number of myocarditis cases in the vaccination
volunteers over background myocarditis rates for this age group.
In addition, a 5-fold increase in myocarditis rate was observed subsequent todose 2 as opposed to dose 1 in 15-year-old males.
A total of 67% of all cases occurred with BNT162b2. Of the total myocarditis
AE
reports, 6 individuals died (1.1%) and of these, 2 were under 20 years of age - 1 was 13.
These findings suggest a markedly higher risk for myocarditis subsequent to
COVID-19 injectable product use than for other known vaccines, and this iswell above known background rates for myocarditis.
COVID-19 injectable products are novel and have a genetic, pathogenic
mechanism of action causing uncontrolled expression of SARS-CoV-2 spike protein
within human cells.
When you combine this fact with the temporal relationship of AE occurrence
andreporting, biological plausibility of cause and effect, and the fact thatthese data areinternally and externally consistent with emerging sources of clinicaldata, it supports a
conclusion that the COVID-19 biological products are
deterministic for the myocarditis
cases observed after injection."- https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0146280621002267.; andWHEREAS, Dr Nathan Thompson, has tested the immune system after the 2nd mRNA
Vaccine. He found that his patients' immune systems were badly damaged following injection
with an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine.
- "My Jaw DROPPED when I Tested Someone's Immune System After the 2nd mRNA Jab.
By Dr. Nathan Thompson What does the mRNA COVID vaccine do to the human immune
system? Sep 28, 2021" "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwR7natWqLk HYPERLINK"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwR7natWqLk and
WHEREAS, multiple studies have now been conducted on the contents of the vials of the socalled "COVID-19 vaccines". These studies reveal that there are ingredients in the COVID-19
vaccines that are not being listed by the manufacturer's on their Patient Information Leaflets.;
and
WHEREAS, these ingredients include those found in the following resources:
https://t.me/HolgerFischerRA/1742"https://t.me/HolgerFischerRA/1742(21/8/21)"
HYPERLINK"https://t.me/HolgerFischerRA/1742(21/8/21)"HYPERLINK
https://t.me/HolgerFischerRA/1915, https://t.me/HolgerFishcerRA/1913, "New Microscope
Analysis of Vaccines and Effect on Blood - Vaccine & Blood Analysis Under Microscope
Presented by Independent Researchers, Lawyers & Doctor (an 18 minute video by Barbel

Ghitalla, Dr.Med. Axel Bolland, Holger Fisher, German lawyer, and Elmar Becker, German
lawyer) - https://odysee.com/@TimTruth:b/microscope-vaccine-blood:9.
WHEREAS, Holger Fisher, German lawyer states:"The Japanese have withdrawn Moderna from the market because they
impurities of a few millimetres (!) in size.

found

They will investigate, so will we here in Germany.
In the meantime, people get their 3rd shot of contamination, children
first or second, the latter being driven by the school system." -

get

their

https://t.me/HolgerFisherRA/1834 (27/8/21) ; andWHEREAS, Dr Sucharit Bhakdi, University Professor, former Chair of Medical Microbiology
at the University of Mainz, Germany has raised concerns about the risks of the COVID-19
vaccines. Dr Bhakdi's interview plus comments by German lawyer, Elmar Becker can be foundhere- https://t.me/SucharitBhakdi/120, https://t.me/SuchraritBhakdi/123; andWHEREAS, Charles Hoffe, GP (Lytton, BC, Canada), who has given the Covid vaccine tomore than 900 patients has reported that 62% of those patients are positive for blood clots. The
core problem he has seen are microscopic clots in his patient's tiniest capillaries. Hoffe said:"the blood clots are occurring at a capilliary level. This has never before been seen.
This is not a rare disease. This is an absolutely new phenomenon."- https://www.worldtribune.com/doctor-who-vaccinated-900-calls-blood-clots-at-capillarylevel-an-absolutely-new-phenomenon. ; andWHEREAS, the micro-clots are too small to show up on CT scans, MRI, and otherconventional tests, such as angiograms. They can only be detected using the D-dimer blood
test, Charles Hoffe said. Using the D-dimer test, Hoffe said that he found that 62% of hispatients injected with an mRNA shot were positive for blood clotting..
"The most alarming part of this is that there are some parts of the bodybrain, spinal cord, heart and lungs which cannot re-generate.
When those tissues are damaged by blood clots they are permanently

like

the

damaged.

Blood vessels in the lungs are now blocked up.
In turn, this causes the heart to need to work harder to try and keep up
much greater resistance trying to get the blood through yourlungs.

againstThis is called pulmonary artery hypertension - high blood pressure inbecause the blood simply cannot get through effectively.

thePeople with this condition usually die of heart failure within a few short

a

lungs

years"

- https://www.worldtribune.com/doctor-who-vaccinated-900-calls-blood-clots-at-capillarylevel-an-absolutely-new-phenomenon.
WHEREAS, see also "Visual Display on How mRNA Vaccine Affects Cells"
https://media.mercola.com/ImageServer/Public/2021/August/PDF/how-mrna-vaccineaffects-cells-pdf.pdf.
WHEREAS. see also "From shots to clots: considerable medical evidence of COVID vaccineinduced blood clots"- https://lifesitenews.com/opinion/from-shots-to-clots-covid-vaccine-induced-blood-clots/. ;and
WHEREAS, Dr Wolfang Wodarg, Germany states:"Manifestations of all three risks. On blood tests, it can be seen by adrop
inplatelet count and the appearance of D-dimers (fibrin
degradation products) in the
blood.
Clinically, there can be innumerable damages as a result of circulatory
throughout the body, including the brain, spinal cord and heart.

disorders

Because of such consumption of clotting factors and platelets,
haemorrhage canalso occur in various organs and have fatal consequences, for example, in the brain.
Importantly, for all of the above possibilities that can lead todisseminatedintravascular coagulation (DIC), all three vaccines lack evidence thatthose risks
have been excluded by the EMA prior to their approval for use in humans."- https://wodarg/com/english; andWHEREAS, a Declaration was made by Professor Bhakdi, Hockertz, Palmer and Wodarg
https://americasfrontlinedoctors.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Declaration-of-BhakdiHockertz-Palmer-and-Wodarg-unabridged.pdf. ; andWHEREAS, Doctors for COVID Ethics have written "Vaccine Immune Interations and the
Booster Shots - How and why Covid-19 vaccines incite immunological attack on blood vessel
walls." By now, most people know COVID-19 vaccines can cause blood clotting and bleeding.
Some readers may be aware that reports of death following COVID-19 vaccination outnumber
those for all vaccines combined since records began, 31 years ago, in the official US database
VAERS.; andWHEREAS, eminent independent scientists and researchers in the fields of immunology andmicrobiology have been writing to medical regulators since early 2021, warning of vaccinerelated blood clotting and bleeding, including that the official data on blood abnormalities postvaccination likely represent “just the tip of a huge iceberg”.
"Those scientists’ warnings pre-dated vaccine suspensions around theworld dueto acute disease from aberrant blood clotting post- vaccination.
The warnings were based on established immunological science,novel mechanism of action of the gene-based COVID 19 vaccines.

appliedtotheNow, more than six months later, new discoveries in the immunology of
SARSCoV-2 [5] have caught up with the rushed vaccination schedule, confirming and extending
the experts’ prior warnings.
The good news is that we are more comprehensively protected against
by our own pre-existing immunity than was previously
understood.

COVID-19

On the other hand, this pre-existing immunity aggravates the risk thatvaccines will induce blood clotting and/or leaky bloodvessels.

COVID-19

This risk must be expected to escalate with each revaccination.
harm to our blood vessels is unlikely to be rare" -Vaccine-induced

https://doctors4covidethics.org/boosting-blood-clots-and-leaky-vessels-the-dangers-of-covid19-vaccines-and-booster-shots/- ; andWHEREAS, an Open Letter was sent by the UK Medical Freedom Alliance to Professor
Calum Semple re his comments made on a BBC podcast for children re Covid-19 vaccines.
Formal complaint to Prof Semple (Consultant Paediatrician) re comments made on a BBC
Podcast, released on 15 September 2021 where he answered children’s questions about theCovid-19 jab. The UKMFA state, inter alia:"We set out our grave concerns regarding some of his statements, mainly related tohis gross misrepresentation of the Covid-19 vaccine safety profile and his contribution to the
propagandization of Covid-19
vaccines for children.
UKMFA has submitted a formal complaint to Prof Semple (Consultant
Paediatrician) concerning his comments made on a BBC Podcast, released on 15th
September 2021, where he answered children’squestions about the Covid-19 jab.
We set out our grave concerns regarding some of his statements, mainly related tohis gross misrepresentation of the Covid-19 vaccine safety profile and his contribution to the
propagandisation of Covid-19 vaccines
for children.
We argue that all medical doctors bear the responsibility to convey
information 'comprehensively and based on all available evidence', and that
hisprivileged and influential position of reaching a large audience
via the BBC Podcast
means it is imperative that he is held to the 'highest standards of ethical medicine', based on
scientific evidence.
We argue that the simplified, one-sided and propagandised tone andcontent of
his contribution falls far below the bar set by 'good medical
practice',
disregarding
readily accessible safety data and communicating a lack of respect for anyone questioning
the narrative.

We request that Prof Semple immediately reviews and retracts his statements
andissue a more balanced response to the questions
asked, including comprehensive andscientifically validated information regarding the available evidence on safety concerns in
teenagers."
https://www.ukmedfreedom.org/open-letters/open-letter-to-professor-calum-semple-re-hiscomments-made-on-a-bbc-podcast-for-children-re-covid-19-vaccines;
www.ukmedfreedom.org ; andWHEREAS, the UK Medical Freedom Alliance has submitted a formal complaint to Dr
Michael Fitzpatrick and the Telegraph newspaper concerning his comments published in the
Telegraph on the 23th August 2021, discussing the process of administering Covid-19
vaccinations to teenagers.
"We set out our serious concerns regarding some of his statements.
These aremainly related to his misrepresentation of the Covid-19
vaccine safety profile and his
trivialisation of the informed consent
process.
We argue that the simplified, one-sided, patronising, and propagandised tone andcontent of this article falls far below 'good medical
practice',
disregarding
readily
accessible safety data andcommunicating a lack of respect for the right of every individual
to be comprehensively informed before giving consent as well as their right to refuse
treatment without coercion, penalty or restriction being applied.
We ask for an immediate retraction of the original article and the publishing
more balanced comment."ofahttps://www.ukmedfreedom.org/open-letters/open-letter-to-dr-michael-fitzpatrick-retelegraph-comment-article-on-covid-19-vaccination-of-teenagers; www.ukmedfreedom.org ;and
WHEREAS, Beate Bahner, a medical lawyer and fundamental rights advocate, Germany, has
written a book "Corona vaccination: What doctors and patients should know!" In it, the author
states, inter alia:"Never before have vaccines been approved so quickly and so little
tested.
Never before have gene-based, experimental substances been
administered to so many
healthy people.
Never before have there been so many deaths and side effects related
vaccination.
And that's only the tip of the iceberg, because the long-term
could be even more serious.

toconsequences

The Paul Ehrlich Institute, responsible for recording side effects in theeventofvaccine damage, is already completely overloaded withprocessing the reported suspectedcases.
The medicalrisks for those who get vaccinated are immense.

Are the vaccinations really safe?
Do the benefits outweigh the risks?
Nobody can say that.
The studies are still ongoing and the vaccines only provisionallyapproved.

Anyone who, as a doctor, withholds the existing risks is not only
fundamental rules of science, medics and ethics.

violatingtheHe may even be liable for prosecution for bodily harm and risk
substantial
claims for damages. Doctors can only avoid thisconsequence if they inform andadvise their patients comprehensively
and truthfully."-https://www.buchkomplizen.de/buecher-mehr/buecher/corona-buecher/corona-impfungoxid.html, https://t.me/rechtswaeltin_beate_bahner/2064; andWHEREAS, more than 23,000 doctors get out of the Vaccine Campaign in Germany- https://www.welt.de/wirtschaft/article233146801/lmpfkampagne-Mehr-als-23-000-Aerztesind-ausgestiegen.html.; andWHEREAS, Medical specialist, Dr. Weiffenbach stops Covid-19 vaccinations, stating "Icannot reconcile my conscience to continue vaccinating"- https://corona-blog.net/2021/08/14/facharzt-dr-weiffenbach-stoppt-corona-impfungen-ichkann-es-mit-meinem-gewissen-nicht-vereinbaren-weiter-zu-impfen/.
WHEREAS, Dr Matthias Parpart decided against vaccination in his practice due to theconditional approval of the vaccines.
- https://corona-blog-net/2021/08/18/hausarzt-entscheidet-sich-dagegen-patienten-in-seinerpraxis-zu-impfen/ ; andWHEREAS, lawyers protest against STIKO vaccination recommendation for young people.
- https://www.kla.tv/19658, https://t.me/KlagemauerTV/1509.; andWHEREAS, see also the interview with Dr. Maria Hubmer-Mogg, Australian doctor"DOCTORS and LAWYERS are the game changers!"
https://auf1.tv/aufrecht-auf1/interview-mit-dr-maria-hubmer-mogg-aerzte-und-anwaeltesind-die-game-changer/, https://t.me/auf1tv/373; andWHEREAS, the issue of the safety of COVID-19 Vaccinations are discussed in the article"The Safety of COVID-19 Vaccinations- Should We Rethink the Policy?" Science, Public
Health Policy, and the Law (Aug 2021); 3:87-99.
-

https://cf5e727d-d02d-4d71-89ff-

9fe2d3ad957f.filesusr.com/ugd/adf864_8c97b2396c2842b3b05975bfbd8254cb.pdf; andWHEREAS, in an interview with Stew Peters, Dr Jane Ruby provides evidence on patient's
blood that has been examined following injection with the so-called Covid-19 vaccines in"VAXXED Patients' Blood Examined, Horrific Findings Revealed by German Physicians".
- https://rumble.com/vidaex-vaxxed-patients-blood-examined-horrific-findings-revealed-bygerman-physici.html; andWHEREAS, many adverse effects of the COVID-19 vaccines are discussed in the Stew Peters
Show, US - "Stew Peters Show: Biotech Analyst, Former Pfizer Employee DESTROYS Big
Pharma - "Checkmate. Game Over. We WIN" (25/8/21)- https://www.redvoicemedia.com/2021/08/stew-peters-show-biotech-analyst-former-pfizeremployee-destroys-big-pharma-checkmate-game-over-we-win/.
WHEREAS, see also "Vaccine Side Effects from Australia - Death, Paralysis all after people
got their injections" - https://t.me/The_Knowledge_Channel/1174 ; andWHEREAS, see also "A young and formerly healthy woman's journey to despair following
her Covid-19 vaccine"- https://t.me/bgalvinjabjourney/76; andWHEREAS, see also "More Vaccine Bloodwork: Blood Cells Reportedly Clotting After Vax- https://odysee.com/@TimTruth:b/Blood-clotting-analysis:f and "Corona vaccines - The
effect and
WHEREAS, see also "A Visual Display of How mRNA Vaccine Affects Cells and More Interviews with Dr. Hoffe, Ghitalia, Dr. Med.Bolland and others- https://www.bitchute.com/video/eHmG22CVPQSq/ (See Dr. Hoffe to 23 minutes. Then see
Ghitalia et al from 23-35 minutes); andWHEREAS, see the article "Heidelberg pathologist insists on more autopsies of vaccinatedpeople (2/8/21) [Heidelberger Pathologe pocht auf mehr Obduktionen von Geimpften]
https://www.aerzteblatt.de/nachrichten/126061/Heidelberger-Pathologe-pocht-auf-mehrObduktionen-von-Geimpften;
WHEREAS, see the article "Unusual formations in vaccinated blood" - by Dr Philippe van
Welbergen, UK- https://www.heartpublications.co.uk/unusual-formations-in-vaccinated-blood/; andWHEREAS, see the article "Vaxxed Blood Shows "Stacking", Typical of Blood Cancer"
https://www.europereloaded.com/vaxxed-blood-shows-stacking-typical-of-blood-cancer;
and
WHEREAS, see the article "Aggregation of Red Blood Cells: From Rouleaux to ClotFormation" (2013), Wagner et al- https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1631070513000741; andWHEREAS, see the article "Magnetic Particles in Vials Cause Japan to Suspend Moderna
Vaccine" (27/8/21) - Quoting: "Japan has suspended use of the Moderna Vaccine pulling 1.6
million doses after visible particulates were found in vials. Particles that reacted to magnets...
particle
relatedtomagnets...suspectedtobeametal..."
https://www.notonthebeeb.co.uk/post/japan-magnetic; andWHEREAS, see the article "Contaminated Moderna vaccines to have little impact on Japan'srollout" - Quoting: "Japan halts use of 1.63 million Moderna vaccine doses over contamination
vaccine
have
been
found
to
containforeignmaterials."
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2021/08/26/national/science-health/modernavaccinations-suspended/?s=09; andWHEREAS, see the article "Japan has discovered what is probably 3 different variants of the
Pfizer shot"https://tapnewswire.com/2021/08/japan-has-discovered-what-is-probably-3-differentvariants-of-the-pfizer-shot/; andWHEREAS, Graphene Oxide is recognized as a superconductor and a large absorber ofelectromagnetic fields. It is a very toxic solution to the human body, leading to slow blood
deterioration and death over time; andWHEREAS. the evidence shows that there is Graphene Oxide in the Pfizer "Covid-19
Vaccine" - see, for example, the Stew Peters Show - "Doctor Warns Graphene in Pfizer"COVID" Vaccine Could Be Causing Widespread Blood Clots"- https://www.redvoicemedia.com/2021/07/doctor-warns-graphene-in-pfizer-covid-vaccinecould-be-causing-widespread-blood-clots/; andWHEREAS, the evidence shows that there are Magnetic Particles found in the COVID-19
Vaccination vials. See, for example, Mark Playne "Magnetic Particles Found in Vials Cause
Japan to Suspend Moderna Vaccine" (27/8/21)- https://www.notonthebeeb.co.uk/post/japan-magnetic; andWHEREAS, the PfizerBioNTech "Covid-19 Vaccine" contains a substance called "4Hydroxybutyl//Molecular formula: c4H90.
"No data or study can be found on what this substance will do to thehumanbody."- Dr Anthony Molloy, "Scientific evidence based document, in relation to SARS-COV2, itstesting method and treatment", 2nd August 2021;and
WHEREAS, the PfizerBioNTech "Covid-19 Vaccine" contains a substance called"Benzodiazepin" - used as an antidepressant medicine. "Benzodiazapines - side effects:

Shakes, tremors, insomnia, confusion, anxiety, hallucinations,seizures, delirium
tremens, sleep disturbances, fatigue, restlessness, difficulty concentrating, muscle tension,
irritability, muscle relaxant, rapid heartbeat, trembling, tingling, flushing, redness,
perspiration, shortnessof breath, fear and heightened awareness of surroundings, eventhough there is no evidence of danger athand, worry over death, losing
control,agrophobia (fear of open
spaces andcrowds), hypotension, cardiac arrhythmias(irregularheartbeat),bradycardia (slow heartbeat), apnea, nausea, vomiting,blurredvision, double vision, skin rashes."- Dr Anthony Molloy, "Scientific evidence based document, in relation to SARS-COV2, itstesting method and treatment", 2nd August 2021;and
WHEREAS, the PfizerBioNTech "Covid-19 Vaccine" contains a substance called "bis 2Hexyldecanoate".
"..is the messenger RNA, which converts once healthy cells toantigens, forming
foreign spike proteins on the cell membrane. These antigens cause antibody immune response(as only markers on theantigens) for CD4 or CD8 cells to destroy and dispose of theantigencell.
These spike proteins, have been found from recent studies, to cause
blood clots from platelet clustering and ADE. The expectation is pulmonary
hypertension over time, as vessels start to block."micro
artery- Dr Anthony Molloy, "Scientific evidence based document, in relation to SARS-COV2, itstesting method and treatment", 2nd August 2021; andWHEREAS, the polyethylene glycol, PEG, encasing the lipid nano-particles in the Pfizer
mRNA vaccine, causes severe allergic reactions and anaphylaxis in some persons- https://www.wsj.com/articles/scientists-eye-potential-culprit-for-covid-19-vaccine-allergicreactions-11608901200Qa22A3.
WHEREAS, "Polyethylene glycol (PEG) - 2000, is widely considered in the medical literature
as a toxin to the human body."- Dr Anthony Molloy, "Scientific evidence based document, in relation to SARS-COV2, itstesting method and treatment", 2nd August 2021; andWHEREAS, the PfizerBioNTech "Covid-19 Vaccine" contains an ingredient called N, NDtetradecylacetamide - a muscle relaxant. It also contains 1, 2 -Distearal - snglycero - Alkaline.
Also 3 - Phosphocholine - phosphates (certain phosphates are used as fertilizers on the land),
Cholesterol - fatty lipids, Potassium Chloride - Salt (used in 3 drug protocols of felons),
Monobasic potassium phosphate - inorganic compound - Molecular formula KH2PO4 - used
as a fertilizer and food additive, Sodium Chloride - Salt, Diabasic sodium phosphate dihydrate- molecular formula - Na2HPO4 - hydrogen and Salt, Sucrose - sugar. "- Dr Anthony Molloy, "Scientific evidence based document, in relation to SARS-COV2, itstesting method and treatment", 2nd August 2021;

WHEREAS, the Oxford Astra Zeneca "Covid 19 Vaccine" contains ChAdOx1 - Chimpanzee
Adenovirus Oxford 1; an adenovirus (monkey cold virus) cultivated on a chimpanzee kidneycell in vitro, spliced together with a SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus spike Glycoprotein S; Histidine- precursor to histamine (water, runny nose, congested lungs, etc).
"When introduced into the body, it aggravates the histamine receptors,
which inturn flood the body with histamine, usually in the nasopharyngeal orifices and the lungs,
but could extend to other partsof the body."'- Dr Anthony Molloy, "Scientific evidence based document, in relation to SARS-COV2, itstesting method and treatment", 2nd August 2021; andWHEREAS, the AZ Covid-19 contains an ingredient called Histidine monohydrochloride again, another histamine antagoniser. Magnesium chloride - molecular formula MgC12 mineral salt. Polysorbate 80 - generally used in cosmetics, lotions, potions and vaccines, thisis also known to allow chemicals to cross the blood brain barrier. Alcohol - ethanol and is usedin alcoholic beverages and general medicines. Sucrose - sugar. Sodium chloride- salt (tablesalt), Edetate disodium - chelating agent (usually removes heavy metals from body and lowers
calcium in the blood), Water..."- Dr Anthony Molloy, "Scientific evidence based document, in relation to SARS-COV2, itstesting method and treatment", 2nd August 2021; andWHEREAS, the UK population are not being informed of the "material risks" of being treatedwith the so-called COVID-19 vaccinations. The "material risks" include those serious adverse
events that are being reported by the MHRA's Yellow Card Reporting system in the UK https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-vaccine-adversereactions, by the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System ("VAERS") in the US https://wonder.cdc.gov/vaers.html and by the European Medicines Agency's Eurovigillance
reporting system in Europe - https://www.adrreports.eu/en/.; andWHEREAS, on the US VAERS system, DEATH has been listed as an outcome related to theso-called COVID-19 vaccines at least 13,627 times as of August 20, 2021; andWHEREAS, on the European Eurovigillence system, DEATH has been listed as an outcome
related to the so-called COVID-19 vaccines at least 23,252 times as of August 28, 2021 ; andWHEREAS, the so-called COVID-19 vaccines have killed more people than all available
vaccines combined from mid-1997 until the end of 2013 - a period of 15.5 years. And people
affected worse are between 18 and 64 years old - the cohort which was not in the Covid
statistics as being at particular risk from death from infection with SARS-CoV-2. Note that the
55-64 age group were NOT tested in the phase 1 clinical trials so these deaths are of individuals
being experimented on for the first time in the phase 2/3 ongoing clinical trials; andWHEREAS, Dr Robert Malone, the inventor of the mRNA and DNA vaccine core platform
technology being used in the PfizerBioNTech and Moderna so-called COVID-19 vaccines
warns against the use of this experimental, novel technology in adults and particularly inchildren, citing numerous harms, including irreversible and irreparable harms. Dr Malone
believes that children and young adults up to age 30 or 35 should not be vaccinated because
the risks outweigh the benefits in this population.

" Malone was also disturbed that it is considered OK by thegovernment
entice children to get vaccinated by offering them free ice cream or
doughnuts,
even allowing children to get vaccinated without theirparents’ consent.
He soon ventured into the bioethics of the emergency use
granted to COVID-19 vaccines.

toandauthorization (EUA)

Experimentation without proper informed consent violates the
Nuremberg Code,which spells out a set of research ethics principles for human experimentation.
This set of principles was developed to ensure the medical horrors discovered during
the Nuremberg trials at the end of World War II would
never take place again, but in thecurrent climate of extreme
censorship, people are not being informed about the full risksof the vaccines —which are only beginning to be uncovered.
Further, due to the EUA, adults aren’t required to sign informed consent documents
and, at the same time, aren’t being given a full disclosure of the risks that would normallybe given during a clinical trial — and, at this point, anyone who receives the vaccine isparticipating as a research subject."- https://toknow.uk/mercola-mrna-expert-speaks-out-on-the-covid-crisis/; andWHEREAS, Geert Vanden Bossche, DMV, PhD, independent virologist and vaccine expert,
formerly employed at GAVI and The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, wrote an Open Letter"To all authorities, scientists and experts around the world, to whom this concerns: the entire
world population" stating inter alia:"The present extremely critical situation forces me to spread thisemergency call.

As the unprecedented extent of human intervention in the Covid-19pandemic
is now at risk of resulting in a global catastrophe without equal, this call cannot soundloudly and strongly enough.
this type of prophylactic vaccines are completely inappropriate, andeven highly
dangerous, when used in mass vaccination campaigns
during aviralpandemic.
Vaccinologists, scientists and clinicians are blinded by the positive short-term effects inindividual patients, but
don’t seem to bother about the disastrous consequences for
global health. Unless I am scientifically proven wrong, it is difficult tounderstand how
current human interventions will prevent circulating
variants from turning into a wild
monster.
I provided international health organizations, including the WHO, with myanalysis of the current pandemic as based on scientifically informed insights in the immune
biology of Covid-19. Given the level of
emergency, I urged them to consider my concerns
and to initiate adebate on the detrimental consequences of further ‘viral immune
escape’.
..it’s becoming increasingly difficult to imagine how theconsequencesoftheextensive and erroneous human intervention inthis pandemic are not going to wipe outlarge parts of our humanpopulation.

One could only think of very few other strategies to achieve the samelevelofefficiency in turning a relatively harmless virus into a bioweapon ofmass destruction.
If we, human beings, are committed to perpetuating our species, we
havenochoice left but to eradicate these highly infectious viralvariants. This will, indeed, requirelarge vaccination campaigns.
However, NK cell-based vaccines will primarily enable
our natural immunity to be better prepared (memory!) and to induce herd immunity(which is exactly the opposite of what current Covid-19 vaccines do as
thoseincreasingly turn vaccine recipients into asymptomatic carriers
who are shedding virus).
So, there is not one second left for gears to be switched and to replace the current killer
vaccines by life-saving
vaccines.
I am appealing to the WHO and all stakeholders involved, no matter their conviction,
to immediately declare such action as THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT
publichealthemergencyofinternational
concern."
https://www.geertvandenbossche.org/post/opencall; andWHEREAS, French Virologist and Nobel Prize Winner, Professor Luc Montagnier contends
that “it is the vaccination that is creating the variants.” In April 2020, Prof. Montagnierclaimed that the alleged novel coronavirus was created in a lab. Dr Montagnier refers to the
Covid vaccination programme as an “unacceptable mistake”.
“Mass vaccinations are a scientific error as well as a medical error,” he“It is an unacceptable mistake. The history books will show that,vaccination that is creating the variants.”

said.

because it is the

The prominent virologist explained that “there are antibodies, created by the vaccine,” forcing
the virus to “find another solution” or die.
"This is where the variants are created. It is the variants that “are aand result from the vaccination.”
Prof. Montagnier explained that the trend is happening in “each“the curve of vaccination is followed by the curve ofdeaths.”production

country”

where

https://theexpose.uk/2021/05/24/nobel-prize-winner-says-covid-vaccines-are-anunacceptable-mistake/; andWHEREAS, Professor Montagnier's point is emphasised by information revealed in an open
letter from a long list of medical doctors to the European Medicines Agency. The letter statedin part that:“We note that a wide range of side effects is being reported following
vaccination of previously healthy younger individuals with the genebased
COVID-19 vaccines.. there have been numerous media reports fromaround theworld of care homes being struck with “Covid” within days ofvaccination of residents".

"In particular, we question whether cardinal issues regarding the safety ofthevaccines were adequately addressed prior to their approval by
the European Medicines
Agency (EMA)".
"There are serious concerns, including but not confined to those outlined
above,
that the approval of the COVID-19 vaccines by the EMA was premature and reckless, andthat the administration of the vaccines constituted and still does constitute “humanexperimentation”,
which was and still is in violation of the Nuremberg Code." https://doctors4covidethics.medium.com/urgent-open-letter-from-doctors-and-scientists-tothe-european-medicines-agency-regarding-covid-19-f6e17c311595”; andWHEREAS, numerous pressure groups such as the Guardians of the Children and Lawyers
for Liberty have written template Notices of Liability for parents to send to the Headteachers
and Boards of Governors of children's schools, calling for a halt on the rollout of the so-called
COVID-19 vaccines to children, Various groups have served these Notices of Liability on
schools around the UK; andWHEREAS, the following open letters have been sent out by experts and lawyers and are in
the public domain for your information and reading:•letter from the Workers of England Union, dated 06/06/21, sent
toall
Headteachers of Secondary https://www.workersofengland.co.uk/latest-news-2/•
UKMFA Open Letter to Headteachers and Teachers re:
Covid-19
VaccinationofChildreninSchools,
dated
08/07/21
www.ukmedfreedom.org/campaigns•
Open letter from UK doctors to MHRA www.hartgroup.org/open-letter-child-vaccination•
Open letter from Evidence-based Medicine Consultancy Ltd to
MHRA https://bit.ly/3jt?Yne0•
Open letter from GP Whistleblower Doctor Sam White to NHSEngland https://bit.ly/2WEtE4M; and•Letter from PJH Law dated 2nd July 2021 on behalf of GP Dr
Sam White
to the NHS CEO, raised in line with NHS whistleblowing guidelines, which "raises
allegations of alleged criminal conduct and breach of legal obligations by thoseleading the covid response" - https://bit.ly/3zuB8GI•
Open letter from concerned doctors, nurses, and other allied
healthcare
professionals to Boris Johnson, Nicola Sturgeon,Mark Drakeford, Paul Givan,
Sajid Javid, Chris Witty and Patrick Vallance setting out "Our grave concerns about
the handling of
the COVID pandemic by Governments and Nations of the UK"
https://bit.ly/3mL8ZXP;•"COVID-19 child vaccination: safety and ethical concerns." www.hartgroup.org/open-letter-child-vaccination/•
Open letter from Evidence-based Medicine Consultancy to MHRA- URGENT
Report - COVID-19 vaccines unsafe for use in
humans - https://bit.ly/3mPH6hl;•
Lawyer template letter re: Mass- testing - https://bit.ly/3znGe7a;•65 Studies Reveals Face Masks DO Cause Physical Harm https://bit.ly/3yyinFe;•
https://bit.ly/3jr4m3e;•
UKMFA Notice of the refusal of consent to receive the covid-19
vaccination - https://bit.ly/38gZlyf; and•The infection fatality rate of COVID-19 inferred fromseroprevalencedata - John P.A. Ioannidis andwww.who.int/bulletin/volumes/99/1/20-265892.pdf;

WHEREAS, the NHS also states that valid informed consent comprises the following
elements:•••

Voluntary - the decision to either consent or not to consent totreatment
must be made by the person, and must not be
influenced by pressure frommedical staff, friends or family (or employer)
Informed - the person must be given all of the information about what thetreatment involves, including the benefits and risks, whether there are reasonable
alternative treatments, and what
will happen if treatment does not go ahead.
Capacity- the person must be capable of giving consent, whichmeans they
understand the information given to them and can use it to make an informed
decision; andWHEREAS, the commonly accepted definition of "voluntary" includes acting out of one's
own free will, optional or non-compulsory. This is the opposite of the definition of"mandatory", which is something that is compulsory, obligatory or required. Therefore, any"mandates" imposed on any live human subject to participate in a live human experiment,
vitiates "voluntary" consent and is unlawful, illegal, unethical and immoral and a breach of theRule of Law; andWHEREAS, the evidence shows that the UK and global population are not providing theirfully informed consent "voluntarily" or "freely given" in that they are being subjected to thecoercive and other methods in order to obtain their consent to being treated with the so-called"COVID-19 vaccines", to being tested, to being made to wear face coverings/masks, to being
placed under so-called "lockdowns" and "quarantines" and subjected to demands to maintainsocial distancing measures. The measures being employed on the UK and global population to
obtain their consent to such public health interventions include, but are not limited to thefollowing methods of obtaining compliance:(a)threats;(b)
coercion;(c)intimidation;(d)sanctions;(e)penalties, including financial penalties, threats of imprisonment
and imprisonment;(f)bullying;(g)harassment;(h)shaming;(i)
guilt-tripping;(j)
deceit;(k)lies; and/or(l)fraud;
WHEREAS, coercion is not consent The court in the case of Kimber stated, inter alia:. "Coercion is not consent. . Coercion is the practice of persuading someone
something using forces or threats.

todoSome have suggested that there is no coercion in threatening a person
withdismissal and withdrawing their ability to participate in society if that person does not have
the COVID vaccine.
However, nothing could be further from the truth."- Kimber v Sapphire Coast Community Aged Care Ltd (C2021/2672) Australian Fair Work
Commission, Sydney, 27th September 2021. ; andWHEREAS, in the case of Kimber, the court held that:"[117] the requirement for consent in this context [that of clinical trials] is not newand should never be controversial. The Nuremburg Code (the Code), formulated in 1947 inresponse to Nazi doctors performing medical experiments on people during WWII, is one of
the most
important documents in the history of the ethics of medical research.""The first principle of the Code is that "The voluntary consent of thesubject is absolutely essential."human

The Code goes on to say "This means that the person involved shouldhave legal
capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to beable to exercise free power ofchoice, without the intervention of any
element of force, fraud, deceit, duress,
overreaching, or other ulterior
form of constraint or coercion; and should havesufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as
to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision."- Kimber v Sapphire Coast Community Aged Care Ltd (C2021/2672) Australian Fair Work
Commission, Sydney, 27th September 2021. ; andWHEREAS, in the case of Kimber, the court held that, inter ali:"[119] Informed and freely given consent is at the heart of the Coderightly viewed as a protection of a person's human rights."

and

is

[120] The United Nations, including through the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, first proclaimed in 1948, has long recognised the right to bodily integrity."[121], The Declaration of Helsinki (the Declaration), made in 1964 by
the World
Medical Association, is also a statement of ethical principles
for medical research
involving human subjects.
Under the heading of "Informed Consent", the Declaration starts with
theacknowledgement that "Participation by individuals capable ofgiving informed consent
as subjects in medical research must be voluntary."- Kimber v Sapphire Coast Community Aged Care Ltd (C2021/2672) Australian Fair Work
Commission, Sydney, 27th September 2021. ;WHEREAS, in the case of Kimber, the court held that, inter alia:

"[129] Freely given consent to any medical treatment, particularly in the context of aclinical trial, is not optional.
Coercion is completely incompatible with consent, and denying a person the ability
to work and participate in society if the person does
not have a COVID vaccine willunquestionably breach this fundamental
and internationally recognised human right."- Kimber v Sapphire Coast Community Aged Care Ltd (C2021/2672) Australian Fair Work
Commission, Sydney, 27th September 2021. ; andWHEREAS. Coercion vitiates consent making the medical procedure unlawful.
Coercion a crime under the law. Actors, such as you, who are acting in the capacity of public
office, cannot participate in coercion under the law, including in coercion related to men andwomen and children being coerced into enrolling into a Clinical Trial and/or coerced into any
medical intervention without full, free and informed consent, such as in order to work, in order
to travel, in order to engage in education, social events and exercising their inalienable
freedoms and rights of bodily integrity and of sovereignty, of freedom of assembly, of speech,of religious beliefs, of travel, of association, of protest and of free will in their everyday lives
and activities; andWHEREAS, any of the above coercive methods used to obtain a person's consent/complianceis unlawful, illegal, unethical and immoral and in violation of fundamental principles of theRule of law, including, but not limited to, God's laws, common law, customs & practices,
International and European Conventions, Declarations, Treaties, statutes, codes of ethics,
regulations and UK laws. As such, consent obtained by using such coercive measures isvitiated and cannot be relied upon as valid consent; andWHEREAS, the UK Government has employed the advice and assistance of applied
psychologists and behavioural psychologists, including, but not limited to, the so-called "SPIB" group of psychologists on the SAGE panel to devise a psychological warfare strategy on
the UK population to obtain their compliance and consent to the so-called public healthmeasures listed herein and have published a document entitled "Mindspace" in which suchmethods and techniques to be employed by the UK Government against the UK population https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/publications/mindspace; andWHEREAS, an open letter from circa 47 psychologists to the British Psychological Society ,dated 6th January 2021 was sent entitled "Re: Ethical issues arising from the role ofpsychologists in the development of the Government's communication campaign in regards tocoronavirus."
https://covidmedicalnetwork.com/open-letters/The-ethics-of-using-covertstrategies.pdf. It states that the authors are"raising ethical concerns about the activities of the government- employedpsychologists working in the Behavioural Insights Team("BIT")
in their mission to
gain the public's mass compliance with ongoingcoronavirus restrictions."
Their view is that "the use of covert psychological strategies - that operate below the level ofpeople's awareness - to "nudge" citizens to conform to a contentious and unprecedented publichealth policy raise profound ethical questions."
They state "A major contributor to the obedience of British citizens is likely to have been theactivities of the government-employed psychologists working as part of BIT."; andWHEREAS, a comprehensive account of the psychological approaches deployed by BIT isprovided in the document "MINDSPACE: Influencing behaviour through public policy (Dolan
et al, 2004). https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/publications/mindspace;. The authorsof MINDSPACE describe how their behavioural strategies provide "low cost, low pain waysof "nudging" citizens...into new ways of acting by going with the grain of how we think andact." ; andWHEREAS, the letter to the BPS continues:"...many of the nudges developed and put forward by the BIT
psychologists
are...acting upon us automatically, below the level ofconscious
thoughtandreason.".."..it is apparent that the BIT
psychologists have promoted a range of covert
psychological interventions."..."Another example has been the use of peer pressure("norms") on the non-compliers by casting these supposed miscreantsintheuncomfortable bracket of a deviant minority".; andWHEREAS, the letter to the BPS also states:"But the most potent, and most ethically dubious, strategy has been
inflation of fear ("affect") as a means of coercing people into
obedience."

the"The decision to inflate fear levels of the British public was a strategicone,
asindicated by the minutes of the meeting of the Government's
expert advisors (SAGE) on
the 22nd March 2020. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/options-for-increasingadherence-to-social-distancing-measures-22-march-2020.
Clearly, the BIT psychologists recommend scaring people as aneffective way ofmaximising compliance with the coronavirus
restrictions, as indicated in the minutes:"A substantial number of people do not feel sufficiently
personally threatened.""The perceived level of personal threat needs to be increased
among those who are complacent using hard-hitting emotional
messaging.""Use media to increase sense of personal threat."'; andWHEREAS, the letter to the BPS also states:"Consequently, the general population has had to endure media onslaught
primarily aimed at inflating perceived threat levels that has
included:thedaily
announcement of coronavirus-death statistics,
displayed without context (such as thefact that 1600 people die in the
UK each day under ordinary circumstances); repeatedfootage of
people dying in Intensive Care Units; scary slogans, such as "IF YOU
GO
OUT, YOU CAN SPREAD IT. PEOPLE WILL DIE."; and thepromotionoffacecoverings - a potent symbol of danger - despite their
being little evidence for theireffectiveness in reducing viral spread.";andWHEREAS, the letter to the BPS continues:"The strategic decision to inflate fear levels has unintended
consequences,resulting in many people being too scared to leave their houses or let anybody in, thereby
exacerbating loneliness and isolation which - in turn - have detrimental impacts on physicaland mental health.
Persistent fear compromises the immune system and works against the objective of
keeping us safe and healthy. ...the population remain
in a state of heightened anxiety;surveys show that, by July, UK
citizens believed that the coronavirus had killed 7% of
the population, a
total - of true - of 4,500,000 people (the official figure at the time wasaround 45,000).
Tragically, there is accumulating evidence that inflated fear levels willberesponsible for the "collateral" deaths of many thousands of people
with non-COVID
illnesses who, too frightened to attend hospital, are dying in their own homes at a rate ofaround 100 each day.
There is also evidence that parents are too scared to take their ill children
toAccident & Emergency departments. Furthermore, thedamage inflicted on the mental
health of the nation, particularly on our
young people is as yet difficult to quantify but islikely to be
substantial."; andWHEREAS, the letter to the BPS continues:"..the authors of the MINDSPACE document recognised the significant
ethicaldilemmas arising from the use of influencing strategies that
impact subconsciously on
the country's citizens. They acknowledged that the deployment of covert methods to change
behaviour "has implications forconsent and freedom of choice" and offers people "little
opportunity to opt
out" (p66-67).
Furthermore, it conceded that "policy makers wishing to use these tools...needapproval of the public to do so." (p74).

theSo have the British public been consulted about whether they agree totheGovernment using covert psychological techniques to promotecompliancewithcontentious public health policies? We suspect not. It
seems the BIT psychologists areoperating in ethically-murky waters in
implementing their nudges, without our consent,
to promote mass
acceptance of infringements on basic human freedoms."; andWHEREAS, in the British Psychological Code of Ethics & Conduct (2018),https://www.bps.org.uk/news-and-policy/bps-code-ethics-and-conduct- one of the "Statement of Values" is:"3.1. Psychologists value the dignity and worth of all persons, withsensitivity to the dynamics of perceived authority or influence
over persons and peoples with particular regard to people's
rights.

In applying these values, Psychologists should
consider: ...consent... self-determination.
3.3.
Psychologists value their responsibilities..to the generalpublic...including the avoidance of harm and the prevention
misuse or abuse of their contribution to society." ;andof

WHEREAS, the letter to the BPS continues:"We believe that the BIT psychologists - in their deployment of covert strategies toachieve compliance with unprecedented
lockdowns, travel restrictions and mask
mandates - haveblatantly failed to practice in a way that is consistent with your[the BPS] stated ethical values"; andWHEREAS, on 6th January 2021, the team of psychologists, led by Gary Sidley, Psychologist,from HART (Health Advisory Research Team), wrote to the BPS as stated above. On 5th
February 2021, Dr Debra Malpass (Director of Knowledge and Insight) at the BPS, repliedfailing to address any of the ethical concerns raised. On 9th February 2021, Gary Sidley
emailed a Dr Lisa Morrison Coultard (Head of Research and Impact) at the BPS, believed tobe the chair of their ethics committee, with the following message: "Would you kindly clarify
whether or not our letter was considered by your ethics committee and, if it was, can we assume
that the reply from Dr Malpass indicates that the BPS reached the view that the use of covert
psychological strategies in this context - including fear elevation, shaming and peer pressure does not raise any valid ethical concerns that are worthy of open debate?". On 16 February
2021, Dr Malpass replied by email to Gary Sidley stating "Your letter will be considered at thenext meeting of the BPS's Ethics Committee on 1 March. I will update you on the outcome of
their discussion following the meeting." On 12th March 2021, Gary Sidley had not heard
anything further from the BPS, so emailed Dr Malpass again to ask if she was in a position toprovide feedback. On 23rd March 2021, Gary Sidley received an email from Dr Malpass,headed "Sent on behalf of Dr Roger Paxton, Chair of the BPS Ethics Committee, stating: Dear
Dr Sidley, My intention was that the Ethics Committee on 1 March would consider the wider
ethical issues raised in your letter. I'm sorry that, owing to a very full agenda and an oversighton my part, this discussion did not take place. I apologise for this. I plan now to take your letterwith a short introductory paper to the June meeting....". This exchange clear shows that the
BPS do not construe the ethical questions posed to them as of sufficient import to warrant
prompt consideration. Meanwhile, the same morally dubious strategies are increasingly
employed to "nudge" people into accepting the COVID-19 vaccines. For example, the tactic offear inflation is apparent in a recent NHS document (yet another advisory paper informed by
the behaviour scientists on the BIT team that encourages healthcare staff to "leverage
anticipated regret" on the over 65s by telling them they are "three times more likely to die" andto follow-up with "Think how you will feel if you do not get vaccinated and end up with Covid19?" Shame is the weapon targeted at young people who are to be told, "Normality can only
return, for you and others, with your vaccination"; andWHEREAS, the letter continues:"the use of covert psychological strategies to increase people's
compliance withcoronavirus restrictions and the COVID-19 vaccination
programme raise ethical concerns
in three areas.

First, should a civilised society knowingly increase the emotional discomfort of its
citizens as a means of changing their behaviour?
This question becomes more pressing when one considers thewidespreadcollateral damage associated with these methods, such as people dying in their homes
because they are too scared to attend
hospital with serious non-COVID illnesses.
Second, it is highly questionable as to whether covert "nudges" - that act subconsciously on
their human targets - should be deployed for the purpose of promoting
compliance with unprecedented and untested coronavirus restrictions
that bothinfringe basic human rights and inflict substantial damage on
our physical and mental
well being.
Third, a vital precursor to acceptable psychological or medical practiceacquisition of informed consent from the recipients.

is

the

Covert influencers to gain people's compliance with both coronavirus
restrictionsand vaccination, in the absence of informed consent, fail to meet this fundamental ethicalrequirement."-Dr Gary Sidley, Psychologist, https://www.coronababble.com/post/the-delayed-response-ofthe-bps-to-ethical-questions-about-covert-nudging; andWHEREAS, it is Dr Gary Sidely's view that, inter alia:"Clearly, the activities of the Government's behavioural scientists fallthe expected ethical standards.

well below

If a psychology student proposed a piece of research that involved theinfliction ofemotional pain on the participants, and without theirinformed consent, it would be
rejected by every university ethics committee in the country.
Why should the public health psychologists be treated any differently?
The BPS must let the British public know their position on thiswithout any further procrastination."

important matter,- Dr Gary Sidley, Psychologist, https://www.coronababble.com/post/the-delayed-response-ofthe-bps-to-ethical-questions-about-covert-nudging.; andWHEREAS, the UK Medical Freedom Alliance, states, inter alia:"Bribery, coercion and manipulation are also being used in the media
andbygovernment and their agencies, in that liberties have been withheld until vaccinated, and the
public have been informed thatvaccination or the lack of it, will influence their ability totravel, attend events, see family and live a normal life".
"Multiple resources are being made available that appear to be aimed
modifying behaviour to reduce "vaccine hesitancy".

at

These appear to rely NOT on the strength of scientific arguments butontechniques of persuasion.""Many have been influenced and coerced by the government message
EVERYONE getting the vaccine and its safe and effective.

that

The UK's high and successful vaccination numbers are regularly announced
andpromoted, giving the impression that everyone isgetting vaccinated unless they are ANTIVAXXERS or vaccine hesitant.
In addition the ANTI VAXXERS are regularly vilified as if a public nuisance and thecause of harm.
The government and NHS vaccination campaigns, inform us that weshould get
vaccinated to help others and some people even think it's their civic duty to get vaccinatedor that they must follow the rules anddo what the NHS tells them.
Recent reports, suggesting that the use of peer pressure to increase
uptake ofthe vaccine in children has been condoned by some school leaders, were very disturbing.
This is not consistent with ethical and lawful practice of medicine andindeedconstitutes a violation of Informed Consent, as required by the
GMC,
the
NHS
Constitution and the Montgomery ruling [Montgomery v Lanarkshire
HealthBoard[2015]."- UK medical freedom alliance "Informed consent and COVID-19 vaccines"- https://uploadsssl.webflow.com/5fa5866942937a4d73918723/5fd9fe45bcece3d0481412af_UKMFA_CV19_
vaccine_consent_form_v3.pdf ; andWHEREAS, `the UK Medical Freedom Alliance, states the following in relation to voluntary,
informed consent, freely given, inter alia:"Informed CONSENT, also relies on voluntariness and the consent must be freely
given. It also requires respect for the patient's autonomy and
their
right
to
self
determination.
Voluntariness requires that the patient's consent to treatment be free ofduress, or undue influence.

coercion,

This means that the person involved should have the legal capacity to
giveconsent: should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without theintervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior
form of constraint or coercion;and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of
the elements of t
he subject matter involved, as to enable him to makean
understanding
and enlighted decision."-https://uploadsssl.webflow.com/5fa5866942937a4d73918723/5fd9fe45bcece3d0481412af_UKMFA_CV19_
vaccine_consent_form_v3.pdf - UK medical freedom alliance "Informed consent and COVID19 vaccines"; andWHEREAS, the words of the NHS vaccination campaign as example 1: The campaign TV

advert features random people telling others to get the vaccine, including Thor Porter, 32, a
drummer and graphic designer from Salisbury who says "I feel the vaccine roll out is key toregaining some sort of normality. As a musician, it will hopefully enable venues to reopen andensure a future in my career." This is a clear form of duress/sanctions/other form of ulterior
motive to gain compliance and consent.
-https://www.gov.uk/news/new-campaign-launches-urging-the-public-to-get-covid-19vaccine. - ; andWHEREAS, the UK Medical Freedom alliance points to an example of an NHS promotional
video, featuring celebrities making false statements to gain consent to the COVID-19 vaccine,
stating, inter alia:"This NHS promotional video, features celebrities making false
statements such as"the covid19 vaccines have gone through thesame strict testing as all vaccines"
which gives the impression that this is not a serious decision of high consequence.
The video does not inform that the covid19 vaccines need serious consideration, thatthey are experimental, and only have TEMPORARY emergency use authorisation and thatthey can result in death,disability and severe harm.
The video gives false and misleading covid19 vaccine information through the words
spoken by celebrities":-https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=(699)+COVID19+vaccine+auditions+%7c+NHS+YouTube - UK medical freedom alliance "Informed
consent and COVID-19 vaccines" ; andWHEREAS, the UK Medical Freedom Alliance provides the example from the NHS website,
providing false information, stating, inter alia:"The NHS website states that the COVID-19 vaccines are the BESTwaytoprotect yourself and OTHERS: Coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccines - NHS (www.nhs.uk).".;
and
WHEREAS, the UK Medical Freedom Alliance provides the example from Public Health
England that their poster campaign provides false and misleading information, stating, interalia:"The PHE (Public Health England) poster/campaign which states: THE VACCINEREDUCES HOSPITALISATIONS by 85%
EVERY
VACCINATION
GIVESUS
HOPE."
https://coronavirusresources.phe.gov.uk/covid-19-vaccine/resources/social-statics-joinmillions/.
This poster is encouraging vaccine uptake in order to bring HOPE, andvaccine reduces hospitalisations by 85%. #saysThis is false and misleading, and this information is provided by theveryorganisation that is responsible for public health and public healthinformation.

theIt gives the false impression that the vaccine is safe and does not in
produce/or lead hospitalisation (For adverse reactions).

itselfAdditionally it is incorrect that people are NOT being hospitalised BECAUSE of thevaccine...
This poster and campaign is also misleading as the risk of developing
covid19 is
individual and linked to previous exposure/natural immunity,
age and general health.
The vast majority of people have no or low risk of hospitalisation andthat many people are already immune.";its

likely-https://uploadsssl.webflow.com/5fa5866942937a4d73918723/5fd9fe45bcece3d0481412af_UKMFA_CV19_
vaccine_consent_form_v3.pdf - UK medical freedom alliance "Informed consent and COVID19 vaccines" ; andWHEREAS, the UK Medical Freedom Alliance states that the person signing a consent form
must be considered competent and not under duress and or pressure, stating, inter alia:"Patients state of mind. For any legal form to hold up in court, the person signing it
must be considered competent and not under duress.
If the patient was sedated, mentally ill, or not in his right state of mind
when
signed the consent form, it could be argued that informed consent was not given.
The same is true if the patient feels pressured or under duress whento sign the form."hehe is asked- UK medical freedom alliance "Informed consent and COVID-19 vaccines".
https://uploadsssl.webflow.com/5fa5866942937a4d73918723/5fd9fe45bcece3d0481412af_UKMFA_CV19_
vaccine_consent_form_v3.pdf ; andWHEREAS, the expert evidence of a number of consultant psychiatrists, psychologists,
hypnotherapists, therapists, counsellors and other mental health professionals is that thepsychological warfare that has been, and continues to be, inflicted on the UK population
vitiates any consent that an individual in the UK may have been assumed to provide. This isparticularly so in relation to children who are more susceptible to such psychological warfare
techniques being employed against them to obtain their compliance and consent; andWHEREAS, the UK Government, its agents such as Teaching Unions, the NHS, Care
Commissioning Groups ("the CCGs"), and others have produced publications and material
containing disturbing language, emotionally loaded and potentially coercive
statements/material specifically designed to manipulate the UK children using various
psychological and behavioural methods, including the use of "peer pressure" into complianceand consent to the public health measures. This material includes, but is not limited to material;andWHEREAS, publications provided to children in nurseries, schools, colleges, on TV, in games,
songs, theatre, adverts and other publications and material which exerts such social pressure as
to vitiate compliance/consent; andWHEREAS, "peer pressure" for children is a greater social pressure than for adults, according
to expert evidence. The UK children are therefore even less likely to be able to give theirconsent "freely given" than the UK adult population. Those children who are vulnerable will
be even less likely to provide their informed consent, freely given whilst experiencing "peerpressure" being used to obtain their compliance/consent; andWHEREAS, this social pressure/psychological techniques/warfare could be found to cause aperson to lack capacity if it were found to cause duress, the threshold for which will be lower
for impressionable children. This is because "Duress, whatever form it takes, is a coercion of
the will so as to vitiate consent."- Hirani v Harani [1982] EWCA Civ 1. https://lawcarenigeria.com/hirani-v-hirani-1982-ewcaciv-1-05-may-1982/ ; andWHEREAS, the evidence shows that children are being coerced and persuaded to take thisexperimental injection. For example, advertisements are encouraging vaccine take up forreasons unrelated to an individual's health but to "protect others" and vaccine passports arebeing proposed and implemented for access to basic rights and liberties such as international
travel and large events and nightclubs, festivals and gigs, thereby placing unlawful pressure on
individuals; andWHEREAS, a school is less likely to be an appropriate setting to conduct vaccination in thisrespect due to the school's role in educating children about the pandemic and as a result of peerpressure. A more appropriate setting for a vaccination can be a GP's surgery where the GP hasa knowledge of the child, where medical records are to hand and where the advice is given in
the privacy of a GP's office, potentially with a person with parental responsibility present, toprovide information to the child and parent to obtain their "informed" consent and without
teacher influence or peer pressure; andWHEREAS, with this kind of information and pressure being applied directly to children andyoung adults, bypassing parents and guardians, the ability of a child to provide "Gillick
competent" informed consent, freely given is highly questionable; andWHEREAS, the leading cases on consent by a minor for medical treatment and parental
responsibility in that respect to be applied in this matter are Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech
Health Authority [1986] AC 112 and Bell v Tavistock [2021] EWCA Civ 1363. ; andWHEREAS, the following excerpt from the Tavistock judgment at paragraph 92 states:"Clinicians will inevitably take great care before recommending treatment to achild and be astute to ensure that the consent obtained
from both child and parents isproperly informed by the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed course of treatment
and in the lightof evolving research and understanding of the implications and longterm consequences of such treatment.
Great care is needed to ensure that the necessary consents areproperly obtained.

As Gillick itself made clear, clinicians will be alive to the possibility of regulatory or civil
action where, in individual cases, the issue can be tested."; andWHEREAS, a person with parental responsibility for the child is responsible for providing
valid informed consent when a child is not Gillick Competent for a medical treatment.; andWHEREAS, the judgment in Bell v Tavistock [2021] EWCA Civ 1363 also states at paragraph93:"Those clinicians must satisfy themselves that the child and parents
appreciate
the short and long-term implications of the treatment upon which the child is embarking.
So much is uncontroversial.
But it is for the clinicians to exercise their judgment knowing how important it is thatconsent is properly obtained according to theparticular individual circumstances, as
envisaged by Gillick itself, andby reference to developing understanding in this difficultand controversial area.
The clinicians are subject to professional regulation and oversight." ;and

WHEREAS, the Tavistock ruling objected to rigid rules on age regarding competency,
reinforcing the government's Green Book on vaccination, which opines that Gillick
Competency is not automatic. It states in Chapter 2 that "Where immunisations are routinely
offered in the school setting, consent differs depending on the age and competence of theindividual child or young person."; andWHEREAS, however, in AB v Tavistock, et al. [2021] EWHC 741 (Fam) the High Court heldthat a child could nonetheless be competent to withdraw consent despite parental consent. Thisis because there is need to give proper weight to the wishes, feelings, beliefs and values ofpatients lacking capacity.; andWHEREAS, it appears that the UK Government, including Public Health England, havepublished a negligent mistake of law that Gillick Competency" can occur for an experimental
COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2 mRNA gene therapies/injections/vaccines and or viral vector
injections/vaccines on emergency approval that have not completed clinical trials, for minors
under the age of 16. Also, the negligent suggestion that the statutory capacity of young adults
above the age of 16 and under the age of 18 vitiates parental responsibility; andWHEREAS, even if Gillick Competency is unlawfully assumed in light of ongoing clinical
trials or, even if a child is over 15 with statutory competency, I nonetheless have parental
responsibility and the right to be involved in the informed consent process, save for lawful
reasons that vitiate trespass to the person. This is because the informed consent process has thepotential of creating civil and criminal liability that a child under the age of 18 is not competent
to litigate. I therefore have parental responsibility and right to oversee the informed consent
process and consent to it if I have reason to believe that informed consent will not or cannot be
obtained. This parental right is caused by my parental responsibility to be my child's litigant
friend should they wish to make a claim and as a result of my right to nonetheless bring a claimon their behalf; andWHEREAS, if my child is injected with experimental COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2 mRNA genetherapies/injections/vaccines and or viral vector injections/vaccines without my parental
consent, I will consider that the civil tort and or the potential summary criminal offence ofassault by intentionally, recklessly or negligently causing me, a person with parental
responsibility for the child, to apprehend unlawful violence against my child; in the form of
medical treatment without valid informed consent that may constitute trespass to the person
and by doing so causing the tort of negligent application of law. This Notice of Liability
requires you to cease and desist from these torts and the potential criminal offence; andWHEREAS, medical treatment and testing without valid informed consent causes trespass tothe person, causes the civil tort and summary criminal offence of battery. The indictableoffences of actual or grievous bodily harm, civil tort of wrongful death or indictable offence ofmanslaughter may also occur if vaccine injury occurs. You can be held responsible for these
torts and offences by inducing them to occur. Financial damages in the form of vaccine injury
can be recovered if a tort is confirmed by the courts; andWHEREAS, in R Wilkinson v Broadmoor [2001] EWCA Civ 1545, the court warned ofnegligent mistake of law as to the extent of the legal authority conferred by a Statute. She statedwith regards to medical intervention where valid informed consent had not been obtained, in
this case forcibly injecting the sectioned plaintiff with anti-psychotic drugs, that:"The people who carry out such assaults, and in particular the
responsible
medical officer who requires it to be done, may be sued in the ordinary way for the tort ofbattery.
The fact that those responsible are exercising statutory powers makes
difference."; andno

WHEREAS, Lord Keith of Kinkel stated in Airedale NHS Trust v Bland [1993] AC 789, citing
F. (Mental Patient: Sterilisation) [1990] 2 AC 1 that:"it is unlawful, so as to constitute both a tort and the crime of battery,toadminister medical treatment to an adult, who is conscious andsound of mind, without
his consent.
Such a person is completely at liberty to decline to undergo medical
even if the result of doing so will cause death"; andtreatment,

WHEREAS, Article 6(1) of the Human Rights Act (1998) provides that:"it is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which iswith a Convention right."

incompatible

The articles which are engaged are 2, 3, 8, 9, 12 and 14.; andWHEREAS, there are also no derogations or reservations for any emergency in the UK
because Article 15 ECHR was not incorporated into the 1998 Human Rights Act; andWHEREAS, Article 2 "Right to life" is engaged because as at 01/09/21, 1625 deaths havebeen reported to the MHRA's Yellow Card Scheme as being associated with COVID-19

vaccinations. There have been 357,956 total reports and 1,186,837 total reactions reported; andWHEREAS, Article 3 "Prohibition of torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment" is engaged because the injection of an unwilling patient or a patient that has notprovided valid informed consent must constitute at the very least degrading treatment.; andWHEREAS, in the Wilkinson Court of Appeal ruling, Lady Justice Hale reaffirmed thisprinciple at common law, ruling that, inter alia:"forcible measures inflicted upon an incapacitated patient which are
medical necessity may indeed be inhuman or degrading. The
same must
forcible measures inflicted upon a capacitatedpatient."; and

not
apply

a
to

WHEREAS, Article 8 "Right to respect for private and family life" is engaged if a person withparental responsibility is wilfully obstructed from engaging in the informed consent process.;and
WHEREAS, there is also no sufficient justification under article 8.2 for so fundamental aninvasion of autonomy and body inviolability regarding valid informed consent which is a basic
ingredient of the right to privacy and to the civil right to valid informed consent; andWHEREAS, Article 12 "Right to marry and start a family" is engaged. Whereas the official
position of the NHS is presently that there is no evidence that the COVID-19 vaccines haveany effect on chances of becoming pregnant, MHRA's Yellow Card scheme is recording an
alarming number of pregnancy conditions. As at 01/09/2021 the Yellow Card scheme hasreported 537 spontaneous abortions and 12 fatalities. It is therefore right for children andparents to be concerned about future fertility issues; andWHEREAS, Article 9 "Freedom of thought, conscience and religion" and Article 14"Prohibition of discrimination" are also engaged; andWHEREAS, the Equality Act 2010 is being breached due to the disability discrimination
occurring throughout the UK; andWHEREAS, I will at a minimum sue on behalf of my child for a declaration as to legal rights
and or for an injunction that will seek conditional prohibition of any vaccination and forrecovery of my legal costs were permitted; andWHEREAS, I reserve the right to take action against the school authority under vicarious
liability. Having a third party carry out the vaccination is no defence. The Supreme Court heldin Woodland v Essex County Council [2013] UKSC 66 that a school authority (a local
authority, board of governors or trust) is responsible in situations where a duty is provided
through a third party, whether on or off-site. It remains the authority's obligation because theexternal agent contracted to provide the service does this on behalf of the school authority,
therefore duty of care remains with the school authority and cannot be delegated. The court
stated, inter alia:"The work required to perform such a duty may well be delegable...But
itself remains the defendant's.

the

duty

Its delegation makes no difference to his legal responsibility for the
performance of a duty which is in law his own."; andproper

WHEREAS, other parents who may not be aware of their children's rights regarding trespass
against the person may nonetheless take similar action within the six-year statute of limitation,with negligence claims having a three-year limitation; andWHEREAS, I reserve the right to apply to a County Court with or without notice for adeclaration or an injunction in the event that the written assurances that I have requested frommy child's school are not given; andWHEREAS, it appears that implementation of the so-named vaccine agenda and or some ofits components do in fact cause harm of various kinds; andWHEREAS, it appears that some or all of the various forms of harm caused by the
implementation of the so-called vaccine agenda and or its various components can beconsidered a tort and a crime and are compensable by law; andWHEREAS, direct and indirect censorship regarding the risks of the so-called COVID-19
vaccines, whether under the guise of "fact checking", misrepresentation, false or misleading
advertising and/or marketing, omissions, fabrications and/or outright lies and propaganda fromyou and/or anyone under your authority are to cease immediately or accept full liability andculpability for negligence, harm, loss, suffering, injury and/or death caused to living men andwomen including but not limited to, new and expectant mothers, breast feeding women,children, unborn children, young adults and babies by your administration of the so-called
COVID-19 vaccines; andWHEREAS, it appears that there is no bond of record in existence, nor any source ofindemnification regarding the so-named vaccine agenda and its various effects that may beconsidered as causing harm of various kinds; andWHEREAS, a man, woman, or person with knowledge of a potential harm, whether caused
directly by the man, woman, or person or not, and that man, woman, or person endowed withthe ability and or duty to act upon the said knowledge in a way to avoid or otherwise mitigate
the potential harm, and fails to do said actions, is liable for the inevitable harm caused, and or
may be found negligent and or criminally liable where there is a duty of care; andWHEREAS, it is a fundamental principle of law that no one is above the law, including but
not limited to, all government actors. Any government immunity clause only applies togovernment actors when they are performing their actions of their office in good faith and that
there is a ruling regarding public officials being held liable for actions done or failure to
perform required actions, as in the case of Rex v Bembridge (1783); andTHEREFORE I, [NAME], Claimant, do hereby issue, and serve by delivery, this instantcontractual NOTICE OF LIABILITY FOR HARM AND DEATH to the above named andunnamed Respondents as the situation requires.
This instant contractual notice is on behalf of all living men and women affected by the said
agenda being implemented in the archipelago landmass, including but not limited to submergedareas, commonly known as the “British Isles” and the United Kingdom of Great Britain andNorthern Island and is intended to be binding between the Respondents and the Claimant, his
successors, agents in perpetuity and all living men and women aforementioned.
SITUS
Governing Law
This instant Contract (hereinafter the “Contract”) initiated by the Respondents (See Exhibit A),
is created pursuant to the signatory’s right of contract. The terms “you” “your” and “yours”
refers to each Respondent names and additional Respondents yet to be named in the Contract
individually and collectively. You agree that no claim of interest in the contract shall beassumed other than as expressly represented hereunder, and that the Contract shall be governedby and construed exclusively in accordance with the agreement of the parties as expressly
stated hereunder. You agree that all words in this Contract are as the Claimant understands
them.
Restriction of Jurisdiction
Other than as expressly represented herein, you agree that no section of the Contract shall beassumed to constitute a voluntary election by any of the parties thereto to submit the Contract
or the said parties to any venue of law, jurisdiction, court or tribunal, other than by theagreement of the parties as stated hereunder. You agree that the Contract shall not be deemed
to be subject to the laws of the Government, any State, political subdivision thereof, or any
legal fiction, procedural phantom, political construct, or any other jurisdiction, real or
imagined, unless such election is voluntarily made in writing by the Claimant or his/her agent.
You agree that no person(s) shall have any authority to control any decision regarding theContract; no powers, interest or authority to amend, alter, modify or terminate the Contract are
granted to any part, person, individual, agency, Court or entity, real or imagined other that as
expressly represented hereunder, and no such powers, interest or authority shall be assumed;
all such powers, interest and authority being expressly prohibited hereunder. You agree thatany representation by any party, person, individual, agency, court or entity, real or imaged, thatany such powers, interest or authority exists shall be deemed a confession by the representing
party/ entity to joining the contract pursuant to the terms herein (see Joining the Contract) for
which the Joinder Fee has been established herein at Ten Million United States Dollars per eachsuch event.
Joining the Contract
It is agreed that a joinder fee shall be established in the amount of Ten Million United States
Dollars per each action, of a party not named herein, which attempts to impair this Contract orstultify any of the parties thereto; and this fee shall be due from said party. It is agreed that any
party that fails to timely pay a true bill agrees to a right of lien having be created and perfectedagainst that party.
Evidence and Personal Liability
This legal and lawful notice of liability is also designed to be used as evidence in court if needed
and intends to enlighten you and protect you from attracting civil and criminal liability whether
domestic or international and whether in an existing court or one to be convened under Natural
Law principles in relation to your action(s) and all your omissions in relation to the alleged
SARS-CoV-2 (alleged) pandemic and the measures that have been/are being taken within the
United Kingdom and world-wide to allegedly control its spread and effect including, but notlimited to, the administration of experimental COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2 mRNA genetherapies/injections/vaccines and or viral vector injections/vaccines.

Furthermore, you may be held personally liable for and or privately liable for and or civilly andor criminally liable for participating in unlawful, illegal and or criminal activity and or forsupporting crimes against humanity, genocide, bio-warfare and or failing to prevent acts so
defined, including but not limited to acts that are purposely committed as part of a widespreadand or systematic policy, directed against living men and women including, but not limited to,
new and expectant mothers, breast feeding women, babies, offspring, unborn offspring andyoung adults committed in furtherance of state/government policy.
Your Oath of Office
If you and or any of the Respondents have sworn an oath of office, I have the reasonable
expectation that you will act in accordance with the Rule of Law, Natural Law, Common Law,
Treaty Law, Articles 6 and 7 of the International Criminal Court Act 2001, the Nuremberg Code(see Exhibit B), the Geneva Conventions and the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights,
the Helsinki Declaration, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Bioethics, the Oviedo
Convention, and all other applicable domestic and or international law.
Primum non nocere-First do no Harm
First do no harm. It is your lawful and legal duty, moral and ethical duty to uphold the law andto cause no harm, loss or injury and to prevent harm, loss and injury. As a Maxim in Law, ‘He
who does not prevent what he is able to prevent, is considered as committing the thing’ Black’s
Law Dictionary 2nd Edition.
QUI-NON-OBSTAT-QUOD-OBSTARE-POTEST-FACERE-VIDETUR
The code of ethics to do no harm or injustice underpins our societies, including in law andmedicine. The Hippocratic Oath attributed to Hippocrates (460 B.C. to 375 B.C) states to do
no harm or injustice, ‘I will use those dietary regimens which will benefit my patients according
to my greatest ability and judgment, and I will do no harm or injustice to them. Neither will I
administer a poison to anybody when asked to do so, nor will I suggest such a course. Intowhatsoever houses I enter, I will enter to help the sick, and I will abstain from all intentional
wrong-doing and harm, especially from abusing the bodies of man or woman.’

Duty of Care
You have a duty of care and a duty to do no harm and to prevent harm. Since preventions andtreatments are available and approved for years by regulatory authorities in the United Kingdom
and world-wide as safe and effective, for influenza like illness, including for Covid-19
symptoms, you have a duty to ensure, in your current role, that life saving prevention andtreatment is made available to prevent illness, suffering and death.
Prevention and treatments are available for influenza-like illness, symptoms, including SARSCoV-2 and COVID-19. Severe illness and death in the vast majority of men and woman
including pregnant woman, new mothers, breastfeeding woman, offspring and young adults
proven to be caused by SARS-CoV-2 is rare and is preventable and treatable. It remains to beproven the measures introduced are clinically beneficial and or scientifically valid.
A person with full knowledge of a potential harm, whether caused directly by the person or not,and that person is endowed with the ability and or duty to act upon the said knowledge in a way
to avoid or otherwise mitigate the potential harm, and fails to do said actions, is liable for theinevitable harm caused, and or may be found negligent and or criminally liable where there is aduty of care.
These include, but are not limited to, your duty of care, negligence, nonfeasance, misfeasance,
malfeasance in office, misprision, and by your actions, and or your omissions, any failure of
you to prevent and/or stop measures causing harm to living men and women including, but notlimited to adverse events, severe adverse events and or deaths due to the Covid-19/SARS-CoV2 measures including vaccine agenda which are harming men and women in the United
Kingdom, including but not limited to new and expectant mothers, offspring, unborn offspring,
young adults, patients and the elderly, including those in care homes, hospitals and institutions.
The Seven Principles of Public Life - the "Nolan Principles".
As a public office holder, you are required to apply and uphold the Seven Principles of PublicLife i.e. the "Nolan Principles". Note: ALL public office-holders are both servants of the
public and stewards of public resources.
"1. The Seven Principles of Public LifeThe Seven Principles of Public Life (also known as the Nolan Principles) apply to anyone whoworks as a public office-holder. This includes all those who are elected or appointed to public
office, nationally and locally, and all people appointed to work in the Civil Service, local
government, the police, courts and probation services, non-departmental public bodies(NDPBs), and in the health, education, social and care services. All public office-holders areboth servants of the public and stewards of public resources. The principles also apply to all
those in other sectors delivering public services.
1.1 Selflessness
Holders of public office should act solely in terms of the public interest.
1.2 Integrity
Holders of public office must avoid placing themselves under any obligation to people ororganisations that might try inappropriately to influence them in their work. They should not act
or take decisions in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family,or their friends. They must declare and resolve any interests and relationships.
1.3 Objectivity
Holders of public office must act and take decisions impartially, fairly and on merit, using
the best evidence and without discrimination or bias.
1.4 Accountability

Holders of public office are accountable to the public for their decisions and actions and must
submit themselves to the scrutiny necessary to ensure this.
1.5 Openness
Holders of public office should act and take decisions in an open and transparent manner.
Information should not be withheld from the public unless there are clear and lawful reasonsfor so doing.
1.6 Honesty
Holders of public office should be truthful.
1.7 Leadership
Holders of public office should exhibit these principles in their own behaviour. They should
actively promote and robustly support the principles and be willing to challenge poor
behaviour wherever it occurs."
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-7-principles-of-public-lifeYour Private and Public Liability
Such harm loss and/or injury and death from the measures and actions taken by you, and/or
supported by you and/or by your omissions not stopped by you, to respond to Covid-19/SARSCoV-2, you are liable as an individual for these measures and actions, in your private and public
capacity.
See Principle 1.4 of the Seven Principles of Public Life which states:"1.4 Accountability

Holders of public office are accountable to the public for theirdecisionsactions and must submit themselves to the scrutiny necessary to ensure this."andTake note "An officer may be held liable in damages to any person injured in consequence ofa breach of any of the duties connected with his office. The liability for nonfeasance,
misfeasance, and for malfeasance in office is in his 'individual', not his official capacity"
Redfield v Fisher, 292 P 813, at 819 [1930]"There is no question that a police officer, like anyone else, may be liable in tort to a person
who is injured as a direct result of his acts or omissions.” Lord Keith of Kinkel observed [at59B-59I] regarding Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [1988] 2 WLR 1049.
Furthermore, you may be held privately and publicly liable for your actions and your omissions
causing harm, loss, injury and death to men and women, including but not limited to new and
expectant mothers, offspring, unborn offspring, young adults, patients and the elderly, including
those in care homes, hospitals and institutions
Severe illness and death reported due to the Covid-19/SARS-CoV-2 measures and or thevaccine agenda
Severe illness and death is being reported due to the Covid-19/SARS-CoV-2 measures and or
the vaccine agenda including but not limited to the experimental measures being carried out inrelation to SARS-CoV-2, including the clinical trials, in United Kingdom alone (See reports ofadverse events, injuries and deaths below of those actually reported and recorded as at October
2021 1,000,000 serious adverse events/ injuries/disabilities reported and over 1,600 deaths
reported on the MHRA's Yellow Card scheme in relation to the administration of theexperimental SARS-CoV-2 mRNA gene therapies/injections/vaccines and or viral vector
injections/vaccines. In addition, many more serious injuries and deaths are being reported but
are not included in these figures (for various reasons of delay and difficulties reporting the same)and many more are going unreported (for various reasons).
As you are aware, there is no long term safety data or fertility data on these experimental
COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2 mRNA gene therapies/injections/vaccinations and or viral vector
injections/vaccines.
SARS-CoV-2 measures causing more harm than good
I have assessed the harm-benefit calculus, and I have determined it is clear, the continuation ofexperimental SARS-CoV-2 mRNA gene therapies/injections/vaccinations and or viral vector
injections/vaccines is not justified based on the evidence, is not safe and the experimental
mRNA gene therapies/vaccines/injections and or viral vector injections/vaccines in clinical
trials are causing more harm than good and should be stopped immediately.
Take note “Safe” is defined by Black’s Law Dictionary as “the amount of exposure thatwill cause no harm or no damage after exposure”. The Supreme Court of the United States
decided that vaccine manufacturers would be exempt from strict liability as vaccines are"unavoidably unsafe products” in Bruesewitz versus Wyeth 2010https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-152.pdf

From https://yellowcard.ukcolumn.org/yellow-card-reports

https://vaccineimpact.com/2021/28103-deaths-2637525-injuries-following-covid-shots-ineuropean-database-of-adverse-reactions-european-members-of-parliament-speak-out/

US figures: https://wonder.cdc.gov (VAERS)
You are Accountable
You are a principal and a source of authority in relation to the SARS-CoV-2 response measures
including the vaccine agenda in the United Kingdom in your current position of responsibility
in this position you have accepted, including if you have taken an oath. On your shoulders rests
the responsibility of the SARS-CoV-2 measures including the vaccine agenda in the United
Kingdom and you are accountable in your private and public capacity for your actions andomissions, the accountability and responsibility is applicable to you and to all successors andassigns.
For evil to succeed, it is enough for good men (and women) to do nothing
You are named here as a Respondent because of your current role:
Nuremberg Code
Under the Nuremberg Code (1947) and its 10 basic principles (Exhibit B), ‘it is a personal duty
and responsibility’ to ensure that measures taken, including the experimental clinical trials
being carried out in the United Kingdom, involving men and women, meet all the requirementof the Nuremberg Code, including importantly they are safe and necessary.
Informed Consent
The decision in Montgomery v Lancashire Health Board (2015) redefined the standard ofinformed consent and disclosure. This case established a duty of care to warn of material risks.
The test of materiality was whether “a reasonable person in the patient’s position would be
likely to attach significance to the risk, or the doctor is or should reasonably be aware that theparticular patient would be likely to attach significance to it” (Exhibit C).
General Medical Council guidance: Decision making and consent 19th November 2020
Under GMC guidance principle 4 of “the seven principles of decision making and consent”
doctors must try to find out what matters to patients so they can share relevant information
about the benefits and harms of proposed options and reasonable alternatives, including theoption to take no action.
Under GMC guidance for the prescribing of unlicensed medicines a doctor is required to advise
patients of the fact that the recommended treatment involves an unlicensed product “if you
intend to prescribe unlicensed medicines where that is not routine or if there are suitably
licensed alternatives available, you should explain this to the patient, and your reasons fordoing so”.
GMC guidance also states that doctors MUST address the following information:(a)
The/any risk of harm that a doctor believes (or should believe) that anyone
patient's position would want to know.

in

the

(b)
The effect of the individual patient's (personal) clinical circumstancesontheprobability of a benefit or harm occurring. If a patient's medical
history is known, you willknow some of what you need to sharealready, but the dialogue could reveal more. If
you do not know the patient's medical history, the dialogue is critical.
(c)
Risks of harm and potential benefits that the patient would consider
significant
for any reason. These will be revealed during your discussion with the patient about whatmatters to them.
(d)

Any risk of serious harm, however unlikely it is to occur.

(e)
Expected harms, including common side-effects and what to do if theyoccur (i.e.
as regards seeking appropriate medical intervention andsignposting the Government's"Yellow Card" scheme (with which any
medicalpractitioner
administeringanexperimental vaccine is, or should be, cognizant of).
You are under a duty to tell the patient that there is limited short-term safety data andabsolutely NO long-term safety data. There is simply no evidence as to the potential longterm adverse health effects.
You are under a duty to inform the patient about the reported deaths, harms and side
effects: of relevance to the issue of informed consent is the Yellow Card Scheme. Overall,
1 in 136 people experience a "Yellow Card" adverse event.
Nursing and Midwifery Council Code; 2015
Members of the NMC must act in line with this code (it is not negotiable or discretionary);principle 1 is to treat people as individuals and uphold their dignity and to achieve this, youmust 1.5 respect and uphold people’s human rights; principle 4 is to act in the best interests ofpeople at all times and to achieve this, you must 4.2 make sure that you get properly informed
consent and document it before carrying out any action; principle 14 is to be open and candid
with all service users about all aspects of care and treatment, including when any mistakes orharm have taken place and to achieve this, you must 14.1 act immediately to put right thesituation if someone has suffered actual harm for any reason or an incident has happened which
had the potential for harm,14.3. document all these events formally and take further action(escalate) if appropriate so they can be dealt with quickly; principle 16 is to act without delay
if you believe that there is a risk to patient safety or public protection and to achieve this , youmust 16.1 raise and, if necessary, escalate any concerns you may have about patient or public
safety, all the level of care people are receiving in your workplace or any other health and caresetting and use the channels available to you in line with our guidance and your local working
practices.
GUARANTEES-&-WAIVER-OF-BENEFITS
Guarantees for this instant action are, inter alia, the 1611 King James Bible, the Coronation
Oath of Elizabeth Alexandra Mary: Windsor, the Bill of Rights 1689, Constitutional Oaths of
Office, the Common Law and Law Merchant, the Uniform Commercial Code, the Coronation
Oath Act 1567, the Coronation Oath Act 1688, the Fraud Act 2006, the Criminal Law 1967,
the Treason Act 1945, the Parliamentary Oaths Act 1866, the Promissory Oaths Act 1868, theOaths Act 1978, the General Data Protection Regulations and case law.
I, the Claimant, do not claim any benefit of said Guarantees which are included solely as areference to the law and conduct of named and unnamed Respondents. Bible references are
exclusively from 1611 King James Bible and are used due to Oaths being sworn on it
specifically rather than the so called authorised version which reads the same but is technicallydifferent when written due to the spellings. The use of bible references in this instantaction/NOTICE–OF-LIABILITY-FOR-HARM-AND-DEATH are for jurisdictional
purposes, and no adherence or non adherence to any organised religious group, including but
not limited to registered corporate organisations, on the part of the Claimant may be assumed.
PLAIN STATEMENT OF FACTS
The Common Law is the highest jurisdiction of man made law and jurisprudence forthe men and women sojourning on the archipelago land mass, including but not limited to submergedareas commonly referred to as the “British Isles” and or the United Kingdom of Great Britain andNorthern Ireland.
•

The Law Merchant is tied to the Common Law and is the highest jurisdiction of man
made law for the men and women sojourning on the archipelago land mass, including but not limited
to submerged areas, commonly referred to as the “British Isles” and or the United Kingdom of GreatBritain and Northern Ireland concerning commerce and associated contracts, bills, commercial
instruments, jurisprudence et al.
•

The Uniform Commercial Code is a code accepted or partially accepted by agreementsof the various jurisdictions regarding Commercial Contracts, commercial instruments, transactions, et•al.
LONDON FINANCE & INVESTMENT GROUP PLC/ADR/ is registered with theUnited States Securities and Exchange Commission as a “foreign government” under the number
0000356049.
••
JOHNSON MATTHEY PLC/ADR is registered with the United States Securities andExchange Commission as a “foreign government” under the number 00001061194.

The Common Law reflects the Laws as recorded in the group of books commonlyreferred to as the Holy Bible and is verified by Sir William Blackstone in his published Commentaries
which were instrumental in the framing and establishing of the United Kingdom of Great Britain andNorthern Ireland’s jurisprudence.
•

The past and present so-called Monarchs of the United Kingdom of Great Britain andNorthern Ireland must swear a corporeal oath and thereby do enter a contract to uphold and defend thelaws as recorded in the letters patent 1611 King James Bible as well as the Common Law, to wit:•

CORONATION-OATH-1953
Archbishop. Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the Peoples of the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, theunion of South Africa, Pakistan, and Ceylon, and of your Possessions and other
Territories to any of them belonging or pertaining, according to their respective laws
and customs?
Queen. I solemnly promise so to do.
Archbishop. Will you to your power cause Law and Justice, in Mercy, to be executedin all your judgments?
Queen. I will.
Archbishop. Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and thetrue profession of the gospel? Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the
United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law? Will you
maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and thedoctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established inEngland? Will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the
Churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges, as by law door shall appertain to them or any of them?
Queen. All this I promise to do.
Then the Queen arising out of her Chair, supported as before, the Sword of State being
carried before her, shall go to the Altar, and make her solemn Oath in the sight of all of
the people to observe the premises: laying her right hand upon the Holy Gospel in thegreat Bible (which was before carried in the procession and is now brought from the
Altar by the Archbishop (The Bible to be brought) and tendered to her as she kneels
upon the steps) and saying these words: The things which I have here before promised,I will perform, and keep. So help me God.
Then the Queen shall kiss the Book and sign the Oath. The Queens having thus taken
her Oath shall return again to her Chair and the Bible shall be delivered to the Dean ofWestminster. When the Queen is again seated, the Archbishop shall go to her Chair;and the Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, receiving theBible from the Dean of Westminster, shall bring it to the Queen and presented to her,the Archbishop saying these words: Our gracious Queen: to keep your Majesty evermindful of the law and the Gospel of God as the Rule of the whole life and governmentof Christian Princes, we present you with the Book, the most valuable thing that thisworld affords. And the Moderator shall continue: Here is Wisdom; This is the royal
Law; These are the lively Oracles of God. Then shall the Queen deliver back the Bible
to the Moderator, who shall bring it to the Dean of Westminster, to be reverently placed
again upon the Altar. This done, the Archbishop shall return to the Altar.
•
The Oaths of Office are clear regarding the adherence to the Laws of the United
Kingdom and Northern Ireland. The wording of the oath is prescribed by the Parliamentary Oaths Act
1866 and the Promissory Oaths Act 1868. The form and manner of administering the oath are set out
in the Oaths Act 1978.
•
For any Respondent who has sworn an oath of office to true allegiance to her Majesty
Queen Elizabeth II, Her Heirs and Successors, the Claimant hereby accepts that oath of office, and any
action on the part of the Respondent that are contrawise to the Coronation Oath 1953, does in fact,
render the Queen’s oath in jeopardy.

Numbers Chap. XXX
1.And Moses spoke Vnto the heads of the tribes concerning the children of
Israel, saying, This is the thing which the LORD hath commanded.
2.If a man vowe a vow Vunto the LORD, all sweare an oathe to bind his soulewith a bond: he shall not breake his word, he shall doe according to all thatproceedeth out of his mouth.
Leuiticus Chap. V
3.Or if he touch the vncleannesse of man, whatsoeuer vnvleannesse it be that a
man shalbe defiled withal, and it be hid from him, when he knoweth of it, thenhe shall be guilty.
4.Or if a soule sweare pronouncing with his lips to do euill, or to do good,whatsoeuer it be that a man shall pronounce with an oath, and it be hid fromhim when he knoweth of it, then he shalbe guilty in one of these.
5.And it shalbe when he shalbe guiltie in one of these things, that he shallconfesse that hee hath sinned in that thing.
•

The United Kingdom Criminal Law Act 1967 Chapter 58 Part 1 Section 3, states:
Use of force in making arrest, etc.
3.- (1) A person may use such force as is reasonable in thecircumstances in
the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders orsuspected offenders or of
persons unlawfully at large.
(2)

Subsection (1) above shall replace the rules of common law on the question

when force used for a purpose mentioned in the
purpose.

subsection is justified by that•
Anyone or any one promoting any false information, manufacturing articles or medical
devices, or participating in any manner regarding the so-called vaccine agenda is in prime facie in
breach of the Fraud Act 2006.

When it is proven by tacit agreement or otherwise that the so-called “vaccines” andrelated medical devices and medications/toxins being implemented worldwide originate from outside
the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland; and or proven tacitly or otherwise that theso-named vaccine agenda is an assault on the men, women and offspring sojourning on the archipelago
landmass, including but not limited to submerged areas, commonly known as the “British Isles”, andor the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, their real properties, wild and domestic
livestock, pollinating insects which affect agriculture/food supply, right to life, right of privacy, wellbeing, liberty, or right to equitable contracts; and or proven tacitly or otherwise that any of so-called“vaccines” and related medical devices and medications/toxins or the various “legal” actions and or
corporate, public and regulatory guidance, polices and measures used to implement these so-called“vaccines” and related medical devices and medications/toxins are contrary to and a collateral or direct
attack upon the Coronation Oath 1953, there may be grounds for the indictment for treason, Treason
Act 1945 CH 44.
•

Deuteronomie Chap XVII.
6. At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death,be put to death: but at the mouth of one witnesse he shall not bee put to death.
Deuteronomie Chap XIX.
15. One witnesse shall not rise up against a man for any iniquitie, or for any sinne, inany sinne that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of threewitnesses, shall the matter be stablished.
S.Matthew Chap XVIII.
16. But if he will not heare thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouthof two or three witnesses, euery word may be established.
II.Corinthians Chap XIII.
1. This is the third time I am coming to you: in the mouth of two or three witnesses
shall every word be established.
To the Hebrewes Chap X.
28. Hee that despised Moses Lawe, died without mercy, under two or three witnesses.

CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE OF OFFERS TO CONTRACT
Point of Law
All contracts commence with an offer and only become binding upon acceptance. See
Farnsworth on Contracts, 2004 by E. Allen Farnsworth, Third Edition, Aspen
Publishers. ISBN: 9780735541429, volume1.

Binding Contract
This international Commercial Claim/Lien Within the Admiralty Private Agreement
and Disclosures, Notice of Liability with all attachments comprises a binding contract
between Respondents and the Claimant for the purpose of establishing the honourable
terms of the contract that you proposed, and eliminating faulty assumptions. It is
referred to herein as the “Contract” although it is an inland claim which, whenperfected, will constitute a lien against the parties as described hereunder. This Contract
supersedes any and all previous agreements, whether expressed or tacit, between theparties.
Agreement & Waiver if Rights
If you agree with all the terms of the Contract, you need not reply. Your silence
will constitute your agreement and acceptance of the terms, statements and provisions
hereunder as your complete understanding and agreement with the Claimant and yourwaiver of any and all rights, remedies and defences of protest, objection, rebuttal,argument, appeal and controversy for all time. You agree that your agreement, having
been granted knowingly, voluntarily and with full disclosure, settles all matters finallyand forever, and cannot be withdrawn.
Disagreement & Failure to Reply
You may disagree with any of the terms of the Contract by stating a verified claim withparticularity (see Offer of Immunity – Stating a Claim below). You and the Claimant
agree that a reply which is not verified, or a reply from a third-party agent lacking firsthand knowledge of the facts, will constitute your “failure to reply” as defined herein. If
you fail to reply or state a claim by the indicated Effective Date, the Contract will
become binding and fully enforceable in the admiralty venue as a maritime liensubject to levy, distraint, distress, certificate of exigency, impound, execution andall other lawful and or commercial remedies.
Offer of Immunity – Stating a Claim
You may avoid all civil liability and obligations under this Contract by replying no later
than the Effective Date with a point-by-point rebuttal of the attached Affidavit, sworn
to be true under penalty of perjury, to which you attach certified factual evidence andverified proof.
In the event you decline this good faith Offer of Immunity, you agree with all terms,
facts, statements and provisions in this Contract and your obligations hereunder.
Administrative Remedy Under Verified Seal
The Contract constitutes the Claimant’s administrative remedy pursuant to your offer
to have a Covid-19 Vaccine which will protect me and those around me when my
Covid-19 vaccine is ready for me. If you fail to reply or fail to state a verified superiorclaim by the Effective Date as described, you agree that the Claimant has exhausted his
administrative remedy (his procedure to negotiate a satisfactory mutual settlement) andhas stated a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Opportunity to Exhaust Your Administrative Remedy
If you fail to state a verified claim by the Effective Date as described, you agree thatyou have failed to, and are forever barred from (“estoppel”), exhausting youradministrative remedy, and therefore can never seek judicial intervention regarding theContract now or at any time in the future.
Joining the Contract
You and the Claimant agree that the joinder fee for any party not currently names on
the Contract, seeking the privilege of joining the Contract, is hereby established at Ten
Million United States Dollars per each attempt/event of impairment.
Terms of Reply
As with any administrative process, you may rebut the statements and claims in the
Affidavit by executing a verified reply, point-by-point with evidence that is certified to
be true and in affidavit form, correct and complete, to be received by Claimant no laterthat 5pm on the Effective Date.
Non-performance
The terms “non- performance” and “failure to perform” are defined to mean failure to
perform any obligation under this Contract on or before the Effective Date including,but not limited to, “failure to reply” to this Contract as that term is defined herein, failure
to exhibit evidence of a superior claim upon request, purporting an unverified statement
to be a claim, failure to verify a claim within twenty-four (24) hours of demand, failure
to honour a pre-existing and or superior claim, and any other failure to perform an
obligation under the terms and provisions of the Contract.
Failure to Reply
The term “failure to reply” means your failure by the Effective Date to reply to thisContract (silence) or “insufficiency of reply” as that term is defined herein. You agree
that failure to reply conveys your agreement with all the terms and provisions of theContract.
Insufficiency of Reply
The terms “insufficiency of reply” and “insufficient reply” are defined to mean a
response which is received by the Effective Date, but which fails to rebut any of theestablished terms, provisions, statements or claims in the Contract, or offers blanket
denials, unsupported rebuttals, inapposite rebuttals such as “not applicable” orequivalent statements, declarations of counsel and or other third parties who lack firsthand material factual knowledge, and or any rebuttal which lacks verification, or fails
to exhibit supportive evidence certified to be true, correct, complete and certain and fullcommercial liability. You agree that any such response is deemed to be legally andlawfully insufficient to rebut the established statements in the Contract, thereby
conveying your agreement with all of the terms and provisions of the Contract.
Tacit Agreement
You may admit to all statements and claims in the Contract by simply remaining silent.
The parties herein agree that failure to reply or insufficiency of reply as defined hereinconstitutes agreement with all terms, provisions, statements, facts and claims in theContract.

Qui tacet consentire videtur

“Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak,or where an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading…”
U.S v Tweel, 550 F.2d 297, 299 (1977), quoting U.S. v Prudden, 424 F.2d 1021, 1032
(1970).
“when circumstances impose duty to speak and one deliberately remains silent,silence is equivalent to false representation.”Fisher Controls International, inc v Gibbons, 911 S.W. 2d 135 (1995).
“when a person sustains to another a position of trust and confidence, his failure todisclose facts that he has a duty to disclose is as much a fraud as an actual
misrepresentation.”
Blanton v Sherman Compress co., 256 S.W. 2d 884 (1953).
Silence activates estoppel, pursuant to Carmine v Bowen, 64 A. 932.
Comprehensive and Complete Evidence Required
You have a duty of care, as well as a lawful, moral and ethical duty in your public andprivate capacity and in your current principal position and as a source of authority toascertain whether the SARS-CoV-2 measures and the vaccine agenda, including theexperimental clinical trials are causing more harm than good. If these measures,
including the experimental clinical trials are causing more harm than good, you have aduty to communicate and take actions to stop these clinical trials immediately.
To ensure harm is avoided, complete and comprehensive evidence is required to bemade publicly available for independent analysis, assessment and validation, for the
SARS-CoV-2 measures including the vaccine agenda being undertaken and continued,
including but not limited to:
You are required to provide evidence of preventions and treatments for SARS-CoV-2
symptoms and illness being made available to prevent illness, suffering and to save lives•
You are required to provide evidence that SARS-CoV-2 has been isolated and validated
by independent groups in United Kingdom or world-wide•
You are required to provide evidence that SARS-CoV-2 testing within United Kingdom
is specific for SARS-CoV-2•
You are required to provide evidence that there are no undeclared ingredients in thevials used in the experimental clinical trials for SARS-CoV-2 within the United Kingdom•
You are required to provide evidence of the vials themselves used in theexperimental
clinicaltrialsfor
Covid-19/SARS-CoV-2
mRNA
gene
therapies/injections/vaccines and viral vector injections/vaccines used within United
Kingdom for SARS-CoV-2 so that they can be independently examined.
•
You are required to provide evidence that ‘SARS-CoV-2’ is actually a medical
emergency and for the claims made by you and other men and women acting as senior officers
within the Government and Medical establishment, that “having regard to the immediate,exceptional and manifest risk posed to human life and public health by the spread of Covid-19…”from Statutory Instrument legislation link accessed 24 May 2021. For example, the Euromomo•evidence has also consistently shown no medical emergency at any time from January 2020 to May
2021 https://www.euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps/ It is highly significant that Covid-19 is not a
High Consequence Infectious Disease (HCID) in the UK according to UK GOV’s official
guidance issued
on
19
March
2020
and
accessed
24
May
2021
by
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/high-consequence-infectious-diseases-hcid•
You are required to provide evidence of a “pandemic” with reference to actual death
figures (cremations and burials) in the UK since the alleged emergency and justification as to why
restrictions on liberty, including but not limited to those enabled by the UK Coronavirus Act 2020,and justification as to why a vaccine agenda has been necessary at all.
•
You are required to prove that this vaccine agenda and the related harm caused to living
men and women and offspring was not premeditated, planned and has not been dishonestly used asa way to cause depopulation and harm to living men and women.
WHEREAS, to ensure each living man, woman and child to whom the so-called COVID-19
vaccines are administered, provides their free and full and informed consent to experimental
medical interventions, you are required to provide complete and comprehensive evidence
including, but not limited to, the following:(a)
Evidence that most, if not all, of the so-called COVID-19
vaccines are in clinical trials and therefore experimental; and(b)
Evidence that SARS-CoV-2 has been isolated and validated byindependent groups in the UK and or world-wide; and(c)Evidence that SARS-CoV-2 testing within the UK is specific for
SARS-CoV-2; and(d)Evidence that there are no undeclared ingredients in the vials
used in the experimental clinical trials for so-called COVID-19
vaccines; and(e)
Evidence that SARS-CoV-2 is actually a medical emergency
and for the claims made by you and other men and women
acting as senior officers with the UK Government and medical
establishment, that "having regard to the immediate, exceptional
andmanifest risk posed to human life and public health by the
spread of Covid19..".
For example, the Euromomo evidence has consistently shownno medical emergency at any time from January 2020 to May
2021 - https://www.euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps/. ; and(f)
Evidence that Health(Preservation and Protection and other
Emergency Measures in the Public Interest) Act 2020; S.I. No.
121/2020 - Health Act 1947 (Section 31A- Temporary
Restrictions) (Covid-19) Regulations 2020; Health (Preservation
andProtection and other Emergency Measures in the Public
Interest) Act 2020and other purported Acts are compliant to theConstitution; and(g)
Evidence that the so-called COVID-19 vaccines have beenthoroughly tested to ensure safety to all recipients; and(h)Evidence that the so-called COVID-19 vaccines protect
recipients from infection with SARS-CoV-2 virus; and(i)
Evidence showing that the so-called COVID-19 vaccines are notcausing significant adverse events, are not causing severe
adverse events and are not causing death to recipients; and(j)
Evidence showing that the so-called COVID-19 vaccines arenecessary, especially in light that the US Centres for Disease
Control and Prevention ("the CDC") will withdraw its request to the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("the FDA") for Emergency Use
Authorisation ("EUA") of the CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel due to its inability tocorrectly diagnose for COVID-19/SARS- CoV-2infection https://www.cdc.gov/csels/dls/locs/2021/07-21-2021-lab-alert-Changes_CDC_RTPCR~SARS-CoV-2_Testing_1.html

I have more than reasonable cause to believe that these experimental Covid-19/SARS-CoV-2
mRNA gene therapies/injections/vaccines and or viral vector injections/vaccines can and docause harm, injury, suffering and death.
I anticipate this Notice clarifies my disposition to your various mRNA genetherapy/injection/vaccination and or viral vector injections/vaccines programs and agendas.
You are required to respond in writing to this NOTICE-OF-LIABILITY-FOR-HARMAND-DEATH within fourteen (14) days with a sufficient, complete and full response see
Terms of Conditional Acceptance.
Conditional Acceptance
The offer from the Respondents to the Claimant to have a “Covid-19 Vaccine” which willprotect the Claimant and those around the Claimant when his Covid-19 vaccine is ready for
him is the commencement of a contract negotiation, or meeting of the minds. The Contract
becomes binding upon unconditional acceptance or performance.
Performance and Acceptance of Offer to Contract under Reservation of Rights
The Claimant reserves the right not to be compelled to perform under any contractual
agreement that has not been fully disclosed in the prescribed form as herein claimed.
Terms of Conditional AcceptanceI, [NAME], Claimant, hereby notices Respondents that your offer to contract is formallyconditionally accepted under reservation of all immutable and natural rights nunc pro tunc
without prejudice, whether expressed or not, and upon full disclosure of any and all perils
involved with the so-named experimental COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2 mRNA genetherapies/injections/vaccines and or viral vector injections/vaccines and the vaccine agenda andany of its components, and upon a point-by-point rebuttal of the attached Affidavit, to which
you attach certified factual evidence sworn to be true.
If the Respondent should fail to meet the requirements as defined in the section Insufficiency
of Reply, it shall constitute your full agreement with the following contractual terms in all
jurisdictions:•
Respondents accept full liability for any and all harm and loss caused by theexperimental COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2 mRNA gene therapies/injections/vaccines and or viral vector

injections/vaccines as well as the vaccine agenda and for the false information as to there being a true“pandemic” requiring emergency safety measures and legislation of any kind involving any kind ofrestrictions on liberty and or free movements and or use of testing equipment and wearing of masks
which are capable of and are causing harm.
Respondents to provide a full Safety assessment of the experimental COVID-19/SARSCoV-2 mRNA gene therapies/injections/vaccines and or viral vector injections/vaccines as well as for
all components of the vaccine agenda to include testing, masks and all other measures said to be related
confirming that the experimental COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2 mRNA gene therapies/injections/vaccinesand or viral vector injections/vaccines will protect the Claimant and those around the Claimant andthat the vaccine and vaccine agenda components are safe and do not cause harm.
••
Respondents do respond in full to the 8 requests for evidence in Comprehensive andComplete Evidence Required above.
•
A fee schedule of One Million United States Dollars per day for any continued false
advertising suggesting that the experimental COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2 mRNA genetherapies/injections/vaccines and or viral vector injections/vaccines are necessary and or protect
individuals including but not limited to healthy living men and women and offspring.
•
In the case of failure to pay any fees within thirty days of presentment of a True Bill,you agree to a lien against you, subject to levy, distraint, distress, certificate of exigency, impound,
execution and all other lawful and or commercial remedies.
•
Aiding and abetting the implementation of the so-named the experimental COVID19/SARS-CoV-2 mRNA gene therapies/injections/vaccines and or viral vector injections/vaccines andvaccine agenda is an act of Treason for those under oath.

Take Notice you have been fairly and equitably fore-noticed and fore-warned.
All replies must be received by the Effective Date, which is fourteen (14) days from thepostmark date of this Contract. All replies must be verified. See Terms of Reply under
CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE OF OFFERS TO CONTRACT.
REPLY RECIPIENT
All replies must be sent to the claimant at the c/o address at the top of this document, byRegistered or Certified Mail.
ABATEMENT OF ERRORS AND OMISSIONS
If the Respondents discover any errors and omissions or defects, legal or otherwise, in or related
to this instrument, Respondents are required to notice the Claimant at the required postal
location, by Registered or Certified Mail, with a point-by-point description of any such errors
and omissions or defects for correction within three (3) days of receiving this Notice, or foreveragree to the lawful execution of this Notice as a matter of the public record.
If additional time is required for replying, a request must be received by the Claimant in theprescribed form at the postal locations herein within the three (3) days allotted or be foreverbarred from contest under the doctrine or maxim of Collateral Estoppel.

All terms in this instant contract are to be construed and interpreted as that intended by
the Claimant.
TRESPASS UPON PRIVATE CONTRACT
Any collateral attack on this Contract is in bad faith and is a criminal trespass.
AGREEMENT AND WAIVER OF RIGHTS
If the Respondents agree with all of the statements herein, a reply is not necessary.
If Respondents choose to remain silent, Respondents agree and accept all of the terms,
statements and provisions herein as their complete understanding ad agreement with the
Claimant and their waiver of any and all immunities, rights, remedies and defences of protest,
objection, rebuttal, argument, appeal and controversy for all time.
Tacit Agreement
Respondents may admit to all statements and claims in this Notice, which comprises a binding
contract, by simply remaining silent.
Statute Staple
This Contract is instantly self-executing upon issuance due to the failure by Respondents toreply to perform as defined above. Respondents agree to be bound by all terms of the Contractcommencing on the date of default.
Confession of Judgment – Binding Administrative Judgment
The Respondents are entitled to a Notice of default. In consideration Respondents agree toaccept a Notice of Default as Binding Administrative Judgment (herein after “Judgment”)
certifying Respondents agreement with all terms, statements, facts and provisions in theContract. Since Judgment is issued when a party waives the right to reply, all parties to thisAgreement agree to be bound in perpetuity by any and all such Judgments which may be issued
regarding the Contract.
The Respondents cannot directly or indirectly seek recoupment of losses incurred, due to any
terms of this Contract, from their customers or constituents. Any Respondent will be absolvedof all liability, including all outstanding amounts billed, when they provide a full risk
assessment which demonstrates that no harm is caused in relation to the so-named
experimental COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2 mRNA gene therapies/injections/vaccines and or
viral vector injections/vaccines as well as for all components of the vaccine agenda toinclude testing, masks and all other measures said to be related to the “covid-19
pandemic” and or vaccine agenda.
CONCLUSIONThe Respondents have been served this Notice, including but not limited to the enclosed
Exhibits, Affidavit and Bill of Lading, all of which constitute full disclosure of the so-named
Covid-19 vaccine agenda as of the date of this Notice. This Notice in full will be madeavailable to anyone who chooses to use it in a subsequent claim regarding the Covid-19 vaccine

agenda and any effect thereof, directly or indirectly causing harm of any kind to anyone oranything.
Respectfully, govern yourself accordingly.
Notice to Agent is Notice to Principal; Notice to Principal is Notice to AgentAs above so below
It is written,“If they refuse to take the cup at thine hand to drinke, then shalt thou say vnto them,Thus saith the Lord of hosts, Yee shall certainely drinke”“Thy kingdome come. Thy will be done, in earth, as it is in heauen.”
I, [NAME], do herewith affirm and declare under my unlimited commercial liability that I am
competent and of lawful age to state the matters set forth herein, that they are true, correct,
complete and not intended to be misleading. They are admissible as evidence, and inaccordance with my best firsthand knowledge, understanding and belief.
It is not my intention to harass, intimidate, offend, conspire, blackmail, coerce or cause anxiety,alarm or distress. This Notice of Liability and the enclosed information are presented withhonourable and peaceful intentions and are expressly for your benefit to provide you with due
process, due diligence and an opportunity to remedy this most serious matter and claim.

Qui non obstat quod obstare potest faseren videtur
Executed on this the twentieth day of the [tenth] month in the year of our Lord, Two
Thousand and Twenty-One.
Without ill will, vexation or frivolity
With sincerity and honour,___________________________________________________
Only Authorised Representative of/for [NAME] and any/all Derivatives thereof
All Rights Reserved
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, on this [second] day of the [eleventh] month in the year of ourLord, Two Thousand and Twenty-One.
_________________________________________________________
Witness One

_________________________________________________________
Witness two

Supported by:

Exhibit A

Exhibit B
The Nuremberg Code (1947)
BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL No 7070 Volume 313: Page 1448, 7 December 1996.
Introduction The judgment by the war crimes tribunal at Nuremberg laid down 10 standards towhich physicians must conform when carrying out experiments on human subjects in a newcode that is now accepted worldwide.
This judgment established a new standard of ethical medical behaviour for the post World War
II human rights era. Amongst other requirements, this document enunciates the requirement ofvoluntary informed consent of the human subject. The principle of voluntary informed consent
protects the right of the individual to control his own body. This code also recognizes that therisk must be weighed against the expected benefit, and that unnecessary pain and sufferingmust be avoided. This code recognizes that doctors should avoid actions that injure humanpatients. The principles established by this code for medical practice now have been extended
into general codes of medical ethics.
The Nuremberg Code (1947) Permissible Medical Experiments
The great weight of the evidence before us to effect that certain types of medical experiments
on human beings, when kept within reasonably well-defined bounds, conform to the ethics ofthe medical profession generally. The protagonists of the practice of human experimentation
justify their views on the basis that such experiments yield results for the good of society thatare unprocurable by other methods or means of study. All agree, however, that certain basic
principles must be observed in order to satisfy moral, ethical and legal concepts:
1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that theperson involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able
to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit,
duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficientknowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him
to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that before theacceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known
to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it
is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects
upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment.
The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon eachindividual who initiates, directs, or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty andresponsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity.
2. The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society,unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature.
3. The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation
and a knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other problem under study that the
anticipated results justify the performance of the experiment.

4. The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental
suffering and injury.
5. No experiment should be conducted where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or
disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental
physicians also serve as subjects.
6. The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian
importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.
7. Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect theexperimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability or death.
8. The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons. The highest
degree of skill and care should be required through all stages of the experiment of those who
conduct or engage in the experiment.
9. During the course of the experiment the human subject should be at liberty to bring theexperiment to an end if he has reached the physical or mental state where continuation of theexperiment seems to him to be impossible.
10. During the course of the experiment the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate
the experiment at any stage, if he has probable cause to believe, in the exercise of the goodfaith, superior skill and careful judgment required of him, that a continuation of the experimentis likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject.
Exhibit C
Montgomery v Lancashire Health Board (2015).
An adult person of sound mind is entitled to decide which, if any, of the available formsof treatment to undergo, and her consent must be obtained before treatment interferingwith her bodily integrity is undertaken. The doctor is therefore under a duty to takereasonable care to ensure that the patient is aware of any material risks involved in any
recommended treatment, and of any reasonable alternative or variant treatments”“...it could now be stated “with a reasonable degree of confidence” that the need for
informed consent was firmly part of English law.
“It is now well recognised that the interest which the law of negligence protects is aperson’s interest in their own physical and psychiatric integrity, an important featureof which is their autonomy, their freedom to decide what shall and shall not be donewith their body.
“An important consequence of this is that it is not possible to consider a particular
medical procedure in isolation from its alternatives. Most decisions about medical careare not simple yes/no answers. There are choices to be made, arguments for and against

each of the options to be considered, and sufficient information must be given so that
this can be done: see the approach of the General Medical Council in Consent: patientsand doctors making decisions together (2008), para 5, quoted by Lord Kerr and Lord
Reed at para 77 and approved by them at paras 83 to 85”

Exhibit D
Exhibit D is the Affidavit of Annamarie Harvey de Buisseret, UK lawyer on the legal
issues surrounding the proposed immunisation programme for 12-18 year-old minors/children.
Exhibit E
Template legal letter prepared by PHJ Law Solicitors on behalf of parents to send out
to their children's schools entitled: "Re: Civil
Competency, Pre-Action letter ofclaim:"

Procedure Rules: COVID-19 Gillick

This page is left intentionally blank

Exhibit D

AFFIDAVIT

I, [NAME], hereinafter “Affirmant”, do solemnly affirm, declare and state as follows:
Affirmant is competent to state the matters set forth herein.
Affirmant has knowledge of the facts stated herein.
All the facts herein are true, correct, complete and admissible as evidence, and if called
upon as a witness, Affirmant will testify to their veracity.
•••‘Woe to you, teachers of law and pharisees you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs,
which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men’s bones and everything
unclean. In the same way on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside
you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness.’
Jesus the Christ, Mathew 23:27
Plain Statement of Facts•
The government of the United Kingdom is providing, promoting and allowing sonamed experimental Covid-19/SARS 2 mRNA gene therapies/injections and or viral vector
injections/vaccines to be administered to the general public now including pregnant women, breastfeeding mothers and children.
•
These experimental Covid-19/SARS 2 mRNA gene therapies/injections and or viral
vector injections/vaccines are part of a global agenda which is being implemented.

These experimental Covid-19/SARS 2 mRNA gene therapies/injections and or viral
vector injections/vaccines have received emergency authorisation and are in trial periods until
2022/2023 and beyond.
••
These experimental Covid-19/SARS 2 mRNA gene therapies/injections and or viral
vector injections/vaccines have caused death and harm to numerous living men and women andchildren and unborn children receiving them.
•
Informed consent is not being obtained from those receiving the experimental COVID19/SARS-CoV-2 mRNA gene therapies/injections/vaccines and or viral vector injections/vaccines,
living men and women and children are not being told of alternative treatments, the risks involved andany true benefits, if any, to them.
•
There is an agenda of false information regarding safety, informed consent andnecessity and or any health benefits and or risks of the experimental COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2 mRNA
gene therapies/injections/vaccines and or viral vector injections/vaccines and or availability ofalternative treatments for covid-19 type symptoms.
•
There is an agenda of false information as to there being a true “pandemic” requiring
vaccines, emergency safety measures and legislation of any kind involving any kind of restrictions onliberty and or free movements and or use of testing equipment and wearing of masks and or social
distancing and or lockdowns and or closure of essential health care NHS services which are capableof, have caused and are causing harm, including injury and death.

Many elderly and vulnerable living men and women including in care homes have been
exposed to risk and harm and many killed by exposure to covid-19 type symptoms unnecessarily,
having been prevented from having and or refused life-saving treatments and some having been given•

treatments which have assisted to end their life, often unlawfully and unnecessarily.
Furthermore, many living men and women and children have been denied essential andnecessary treatments and surgeries during the alleged “pandemic” period due to the halting of normal
NHS (and some private) treatments and surgeries for mainly vulnerable living men and women.
••
We have tried and tested cures and preventatives and we do not need a vaccination
programme nor any restrictions on our liberties. There is an agenda of false information against
alternative treatments for covid- 19 type symptoms including, (for example Ivermectin; Vitamins C
and D by deliberate suppression of the effectiveness of established alternative medications, and public
attacks upon the findings and integrity of esteemed, highly qualified, experienced medical doctors andscientists (including Dr Tess Lawrie and BIRD in UK) who present legitimate alternatives to theexperimental Covid-19/SARS 2 mRNA gene therapies/injections and or viral vector
injections/vaccines (if such alternatives are required).
•
The administration, promotion or provision of these experimental Covid-19/SARS
2 mRNA gene therapies/injections and or viral vector injections/vaccines is hereby refused andprohibited by the Affirmant. Informed consent is legally required for administration of such
experimental medications/treatments/gene therapies/injections.
•
The administration, promotion or provision of these experimental Covid-19/SARS 2mRNA gene therapies/injections and or viral vector injections/vaccines and the vaccine agenda(promoting vaccines, requiring emergency safety measures and legislation involving restrictions onliberty and or free movements and promoting use of testing equipment and wearing of masks etc)
violates many of the Affirmant’s inalienable rights and “human rights”, such as those laid out by the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Social, Economic and Cultural
Rights, the European Convention on Human Rights, Article 1 Obligation to respect Human Rights, 2
Right to Life, 3 Prohibition of torture, 5 Right to liberty and security and 8 Right to respect for privateand family life, the Human Rights Act, the Oviedo Convention and other human rights Conventions,
Treaties, Statutes and laws, including the common law right to bodily integrity - "Voluntas Aegroti
Suprema Lex" - Over his or her own mind or body the individual is Sovereign." and the common law"Prima Non Nocere" - "Do no harm" and God's laws of "Do no harm".

Please note that terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed tosuch terms in the Notice of Liability to which this Affidavit is attached.
I, [NAME], Affirmant, a [ living man/woman], upon my full unlimited commercial liability,
do affirm and say that I have read the above Affidavit and do know the contents to the very
best of my knowledge to be true, correct, complete and not misleading; the truth, the wholetruth, and nothing but the truth.
IN
WITNESS
WHEREOF,autographedat………………….……………………………….… on the [second] day of [November] in
the Year Two Thousand and Twenty-one.
………………………………......., All Rights
Reserved……………………………………….
Claimant/Affirmant [print][autograph][ADDRESS]…………………………………………………
…………………………………………
Witness [autograph]

Witness [autograph]

Before me, the undersigned Commissioner for Oaths, appeared [NAME], known to me to be the one
whose name is subscribed above, and acknowledged execution of the same for the purposes thereincontained.
Witness my hand and official seal this [ DAY] day of [MONTH], 2021.
…………………………………………….
COMMMISSIONER FOR OATHS