I discuss the legalities re the injections, masks and testing and using isolation measures to manage the spread of a pathogen with the indomitable AJ Roberts in the The AJ Roberts Show last night.
Also on the show was Simone Plaut – Health & Safety at Work expert who also provided her expert evidence on the harms of mask wearing to the court in the recent court case against a school.
Individual risk assessments of the clinical risks to the individual of any medical device or procedure or treatment or isolation methods being used in the work place or school or hospital etc – are a legal DUTY under the Management of Health & Safety at Work Regulations 1999, regulation 3:
This means that the employer/school/hospital/GP surgery/shops/venues etc MUST provide the individual with an individual risk assessment of their individual risk of harm from being mandated to wear a medical device (ie a face mask), to be tested with a medical device (ie. a PCR/lateral flow etc testing kit) or to be injected with a drug/medicine/gene treatment/chemicals/pathogens etc or being isolated from others.
The Occupational Health Team of each organisation MUST be tasked with providing the individual with such an individual risk assessment under regulation 3, cited above.
See also the judgment in the case of The Queen v St George’s Healthcare NHS Trust (1998) in which the Court of Appeal sets out their Guidelines which applies to “any cases involving capacity to provide informed consent] [when… invasive treatment may be needed by a patient..”:
See also the judgment in the case of RT and LT v A Local Authority (2010) EWHC 1910 (Fam) at paragraph 40.
This states that a person is not able to provide their informed consent to be masked/tested/injected/isolated etc if he/she is “unable to make a decision for himself” as defined under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 ie he/she is “unable to think for himself” if she/he is unable to:
a. Understand the information relevant to the decision
b. To retain that information
c. To use or weigh that information as part of the process of making the decision or
d. To communicate his decision whether by talking, using sign language or any other means (the so called “functional test”).
An inability to undertake any one of these four aspects of the decision making process set out in s3(1) of the 2005 Mental Capacity Act 2005 will be sufficient for a finding of incapacity, provided the inability is because of an impairment of, or a disturbance in the functioning of, the mind or brain.
Please read the judgment in the UK Supreme Court case of Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board (2015). This states that the individual MUST be informed of the material risks of the medical intervention:
in which Lady Hale states:
“…it could now be stated “with a reasonable degree of confidence” that the need for informed consent is firmly part of the English law.”
Lady Hale also stated:
“It is now well recognised that the interest which the law of negligence protects is a person’s interest in their own physical and psychiatric integrity, an important feature of which is their autonomy, their freedom to decide what shall and shall not be put in their body.”
Please also all read the case of Bell v Tavistock NHS Trust judgment of December 2020.
This latest court decision is binding on the NHS and doctors and nurses and clinicians etc.
The Court clearly stated that a child under the age of 18 CANNOT provide their informed consent to be treated with an experimental drug with no long term safety data and no data on long term consequences such as fertility and sterility and long term side effects or disability risks or risk of death.
The Time for Silence is Over
A unified pushback against the globalist agenda
It’s finally here, the Global Walkout begins September 4th at 8pm London time and continue every weeks. Next step 4th June 2023.
One step at a time, hand in hand, we are walking out from the globalist society they are trying to enslave us into
ANYONE can participate
ANYWHERE in the world
JOIN or read about it here – https://globalwalkout.com
The third step is to unsubscribe from all mainstream media outlets. Delete the apps from your phone, laptop, and tablet and unfollow all of their social media and YouTube channels. Try to avoid mainstream media for at least one week, even if the headline is intriguing.
In the same time why not removing all the big tech tracking/spying/social credit system around you: (Youtube, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Tik Tok, Google, Apple, Microsoft, Whatsapp, Zoom, Linkedln, Snapchat, Tumblr, Pinterest, Reddit, Myspace, etc.)
The fourth step of the global walkout is to move as many accounts as you can to a union or local bank.
If you like our work please consider to donate :
If you are looking for solutions (lawyer, form, gathering, action, antidote, treatments, maybe this could help you:
If you want to fight back better:
Find the others: www.freedomcells.org
Spike Protein Protocol
Glutathione (most important for body detoxification) or better
NAC = N-Acetyl-Cysteine 600-750mg (causes the body to produce glutathione itself)
Astaxantin 5mg (also improves vision)
Milk thistle (also liver and stomach protection)
Melatonin 1mg to 10mg (against 5G)
Alternatively CDS/CDL and zeolite
Dr. Zelenko’s Protocol contains Ivermectin, Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), Zinc, Vitamin D3, and Quercetin.
How to find the truth :
Search engine: https://presearch.org/, https://search.brave.com/, Searx (choose the server that you want) or https://metager.org/
Facebook style: www.gab.com or https://www.minds.com/
INTELLIGENCE ISN’T KNOWING EVERYTHING, IT’S THE ABILITY TO CHALLENGE EVERYTHING YOU KNOW
One thought on “They MUST provide the individual with an individual risk assessment of their individual risk of harm from being mandated”
There is also massive implications for vaccine shedding that schools have not taken into consideration. I know of a number of parents including myself who have asked for copies of the risk assessments relating to the dangers of vaccine shedding as acknowledged in Pfizer’s very own trial safety protocols document. They have failed to provide any such document despite already having begun vaccinating children on school grounds. Please consider adding this to your case. There will be children who cannot receive this inoculation for medical reasons or who choose not to take it, who risk serious harm from being in close proximity to other students for prolonged periods of time.