This Week in the New Normal #5
OffGuardian | September 5, 2021
This Week in the New Normal is our weekly chart of the progress of autocracy, authoritarianism and economic restructuring around the world.
1. MANDATORY VACCINES FOR NHS WORKERS?
The UK’s health secretary Sajid Javid is said to be considering mandatory Covid “vaccines” for all NHS employees. Such a move could be disastrous, and likely intentionally so.
The UK already has mandatory vaccinations for carehome workers, a policy which is predicted to cause 10,000s of posts to be emptied. Almost every care facility and old person’s home in the country already has a sign out front almost begging for staff.
The same policy in the NHS would see the same results… but worse. The NHS is the biggest single employer in Europe, with over 1.3 million full-time staff. A mass exodus of even 1-5% of them would mean tens of thousands of newly unemployed. Not to mention the effect on logistics and standard of care.
To enforce this policy in the autumn, just before the winter flu surge which cripples the NHS every single year, would be an intentionally destructive act. As staff leave rather than face forced injections, patient care will suffer, people will die… and the deaths will be blamed on Covid, and the unvaccinated, despite being the predictable result of bureaucratic mismanagement.
If it goes forward, this will not be incompetence, but deliberate sabotage.
2. THE TWO FACES OF JENNIFER
Jennifer Rubin is a warmonger who writes for the Washington Post, but I repeat myself. Her out put, from Syria to Ukraine to vaccines to Trump is exactly what you’d expect from the CIA’s paper of choice.
She’s also got a beautiful example of media “liberal” doublethink for us this week.
Here is Jennifer on abortion rights in 2019:
… and here is Jennifer suggesting vague legal repercussions for refusing the Covid “vaccine”.
Yup.
Oh, and be sure to out her latest for the WaPo too, where she extolls the virtue of fear as a tool of public manipulation, demands legal mandates for vaccines for everyone, insists that funding should be cut for schools who don’t force their pupils to wear masks, and says “If eligible people insist on remaining unvaccinated, it should be increasingly difficult for them to interact with others.”
In short, she’s a monster.
3. THE DANGEROUS ILLUSION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS … continue reading
Legal Information About How To Refuse Vaccine Mandates, Etc.
Weston A Price Foundation, London Chapter | July 27, 2021
Below is a helpful guide for anyone in the common law nations (UK, US, Canada, NZ, Australia, etc) concerned about unlawful impositions of COVID19 government mandates on vaccines, masks, exemptions, etc.
Vaccines in UK are not mandatory. There is an exemption on evidence of medical reasons and the Supreme Court recognises at common law that denial of free and informed consent is a self certified medical reason. See Montgomery v Lanarkshire [2015] UKSC 11 https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2013-0136-judgment.pdf …In R Wilkinson v Broadmoor : [2001] EWCA Civ 1545
In that case Lady Justice Hale, Supreme Court President, confirmed that forced medical procedure without informed consent “may be sued in the ordinary way for the (common law) tort of battery”. https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2001/1545.html …In the judgement it was held that acting under statutory authority provides no defence, therefore the Employer will be guilty of coercion on the threat of battery with regards to unlawful dismissal if express evidence of denial of informed consent are unlawfully rejected.This will result in a breach of contract and also a Tort that can be sued.
The Above Is Why Mask “Mandate” Exemptions Were Self Certified.
It is unlawful for Doctors to interfere with the process of free and informed consent. Informed consent is defined in Montgomery as follows:
- That the patient is given sufficient information – to allow individuals to make choices that will affect their health and well being on proper information.
- Sufficient information means informing the patient of the availability of other treatments (and forms of testing).
- That the patient is informed of the material risks of taking the medical intervention and the material risks of declining it.If consent is given but the Patient subsequently proves that information provided at the time breached the above common law test of informed consent, the Tort of battery is committed and the medication is unlawful.
The High Court has found children incapable of providing Gillick Competency for experimental medicines with unknown long term effects. Schools therefore risk being sued for battery if ignoring Parental preferences.
See Bell v Tavistock [2020] EWHC 3274 https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Bell-v-Tavistock-Judgment.pdf …
These principles are discussed without reference to case law on this important NHS page on Free and Informed Consent and Gillick Competency. See:
https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/consent-to-treatment/ …
The fundamental common law right to free and informed consent, based on the ancient Tort of battery (tresspass to the person), are valid in all 16 Commonwealth Realms and both the Republic of Ireland and USA, where English common law is retained as a body of law.
In Ireland, evidence that English common law rights are retained can be found in the Statute Revision Act (2007) which retained Magna Carta and most of the English Bill of Rights (1688) and much, much more. http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2007/act/28/enacted/en/html …
In USA, English common law rights are retained by the 9th Amendment of the Constitution
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”, hence why US courts refer to them. https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-
9/ … Law that provides rights sit above normal laws in English law and provide lawful excuse to statutory obligations with this acknowledged by courts. see Art.29 Magna Carta (1297), which states: “we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right.” https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Edw1cc1929/25/9/section/XXIX …
Another case to read is Burton Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2017] EWCA Civ 62 regarding Doctor’s obligation to provide information to inform consent. https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2017/62.html …
Happy for Solicitors to DM and work with me or folk who want to work on template letters to send out.For those not familiar with our organisation, here are the articles we have written on Covid. See: https://www.westonaprice.org/coronavirus/
Covid passports also recognise self certified free and informed consent.
“If you have a medical reason which means you cannot be vaccinated or tested, you may be asked to self-declare this medical exemption.” https://www.gov.uk/guidance/nhs-covid-pass …
Also see Art.IV Acts of Union (1706-7):
“That all the Subjects of the UK of GB shall from & after the Union have full freedom & Intercourse of Trade & Navigation to & from any port or place within the said UK & the Dominions” https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Ann/6/11/part/4 …
For our friends in New Zealand, you also have these common law rights, but additionally, Art.11 of your 1990 Bill of Rights states: ”Everyone has the right to refuse to undergo any medical treatment.” https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1990/0109/latest/DLM224792.html …
Why all the fuss about Ivermectin?
By Brian C. Joondeph | American Thinker | September 3, 2021
First hydroxychloroquine, now ivermectin, is the hated deadly drug de jour, castigated by the medical establishment and regulatory authorities. Both drugs have been around for a long time as FDA-approved prescription medications. Yet now we are told they are as deadly as arsenic.
As a physician, I am certainly aware of ivermectin but don’t recall ever writing a prescription for it in my 30+ years’ medical career. Ivermectin is an anthelmintic, meaning it cures parasitic infections. In my world of ophthalmology, it is used on occasion for rare parasitic or worm infections in the eye.
Ivermectin was FDA approved in 1998 under the brand name Stromectol, produced by pharmaceutical giant Merck, approved for several parasitic infections. The product label described it as having a “unique mode of action,” which “leads to an increase in the permeability of the cell membrane to chloride ions.” This suggests that ivermectin acts as an ionophore, making cell membranes permeable to ions that enter the cell for therapeutic effect.
Ivermectin is one of several ionophores, others including hydroxychloroquine, quercetin, and resveratrol, the latter two available over the counter. These ionophores simply open a cellular door, allowing zinc to enter the cell, where it then interferes with viral replication, providing potential therapeutic benefit in viral and other infections.
This scientific paper reviews and references other studies demonstrating antibacterial, antiviral, and anticancer properties of ivermectin. This explains the interest in this drug as having potential use in treating COVID.
Does ivermectin work in COVID? I am not attempting to answer that question, instead looking at readily available information because this drug has been the focus of much recent media attention. For the benefit of any reader eager to report this article and author to the medical licensing boards for pushing misleading information, I am not offering medical advice or prescribing anything. Rather, I am only offering commentary on this newsworthy and controversial drug.
What’s newsworthy about ivermectin? A simple Google search of most medications describes uses and side effects. A similar search of ivermectin provides headlines of why it shouldn’t be taken and how dangerous it is.
YouTube screen grab
The Guardian describes ivermectin as horse medicine reminding readers considering taking the drug, “You are not a horse. You are not a cow”, saying it’s a medicine meant for farm animals. The FDA echoed that sentiment in a recent tweet, adding “Seriously, y’all. Stop it,” their word choice making it obvious who the tweet was directed to.
Perhaps the FDA didn’t realize that Barack and Michelle Obama often used the term “y’all” and that some might construe the FDA tweet as racist.
The FDA says ivermectin “can be dangerous and even lethal,” yet they approved it in 1998 and have not pulled it from the market despite it being “dangerous and lethal.” Any medication can be “dangerous and lethal” if misused. People have even overdosed on water.
It is true that ivermectin is also used in animals, as are many drugs approved for human use. This is a list of veterinary drugs with many familiar names of antibiotics, antihypertensives, and anesthetics commonly used by humans. Since these drugs are used in farm animals, should humans stop taking them? That seems a rather unscientific argument against ivermectin, especially coming from the FDA.
And healthcare professionals are not recommending or prescribing animal versions of ivermectin as there is an FDA-approved human formulation.
Does ivermectin work against COVID? That is the bigger question and worthy of investigation, rather than reminding people that they are not cows.
A study published several months ago in the American Journal of Therapeutics concluded,
Meta-analyses based on 18 randomized controlled treatment trials of ivermectin in COVID-19 have found large, statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance. Furthermore, results from numerous controlled prophylaxis trials report significantly reduced risks of contracting COVID-19 with the regular use of ivermectin. Finally, the many examples of ivermectin distribution campaigns leading to rapid population-wide decreases in morbidity and mortality indicate that an oral agent effective in all phases of COVID-19 has been identified.
To my knowledge, these 18 studies have not been retracted, unlike previous studies critical of hydroxychloroquine which were ignominiously retracted by prestigious medical journals like The Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine.
Yet the medical establishment refuses to even entertain the possibility of some benefit from ivermectin, castigating physicians who want to try it in their patients. 18 studies found benefit. Are they all wrong?
Podcaster Joe Rogan recently contracted COVID and recovered within days of taking a drug cocktail including ivermectin. Was it his drug cocktail, his fitness, or just good luck? Impossible to know but his experience will keep ivermectin in the news.
Highly unvaccinated India had a surge in COVID cases earlier this year which abruptly ended following the widespread use of ivermectin, over the objections and criticism of the WHO. In the one state, Tamil Nadu, that did not use ivermectin, cases tripled instead of dropping by 97 percent as in the rest of the country.
This is anecdotal and could have other explanations but the discovery of penicillin was also anecdotal and observational. Good science should investigate rather than ignore such observations.
The Japanese Medical Association recently endorsed ivermectin for COVID. The US CDC cautioned against it.
There is legal pushback as an Ohio judge ordered a hospital to treat a ventilated COVID patient with ivermectin. After a month on the ventilator, this patient is likely COVID free and ivermectin now will have no benefit, allowing the medical establishment to say “see I told you so” that it wouldn’t help.
By this point, active COVID infection is not the issue; instead, it is weaning off and recovery from long-term life support. The early hydroxychloroquine studies had the same flaw, treating patients too late in the disease course to provide or demonstrate benefit.
These drugs have been proposed for early outpatient treatment, not when patients are seriously ill and near death. Looking for treatment benefits in the wrong patient population will yield expected negative results.
Given how devastating COVID can be and how, despite high levels of vaccination in countries like the US, UK, and Israel, we are seeing surging cases and hospitalizations among the vaccinated, we should be pulling out all the stops in treating this virus.
Medical treatment involves balancing risks and benefits. When FDA-approved medications are used in appropriate doses for appropriate patients, prescribed by competent physicians, the risks tend to be low, and any benefit should be celebrated. Instead, the medical establishment, media, and regulatory authorities are taking the opposite approach. One has to wonder why.
Journal Nature: COVID lockdowns are key to begin ‘personal carbon allowances’
Restrictions on individuals… that were unthinkable only 1 year before’ have us ‘more prepared to accept tracking & limitations’ to ‘achieve a safer climate’
Nature Sustainability |
Authors argue COVID restrictions, smart meters & tracking apps can be used as a stepping stone for a personal carbon allowance:
Journal article urges for “the need for a low-carbon recovery from the COVID-19 crisis” by using “personal carbon allowances (PCAs).”
“A PCA scheme would entail all adults receiving an equal, tradable carbon allowance that reduces over time in line with national targets… encompassing individuals’ carbon emissions relating to travel, space heating, water heating and electricity.” …
“Allowances were envisioned to be deducted from the personal budget with every payment for transport fuel, home-heating fuels and electricity bills. People in shortage would be able to purchase additional units in the personal carbon market from those with excess to sell. New, more ambitious PCA proposals include economy-wide emissions, encompassing food, services and consumption-related carbon emissions, for example.”
In particular, during the COVID-19 pandemic, restrictions on individuals for the sake of public health, and forms of individual accountability and responsibility that were unthinkable only one year before, have been adopted by millions of people. People may be more prepared to accept the tracking and limitations related to PCAs to achieve a safer climate and the many other benefits (for example, reduced air pollution and improved public health) associated with addressing the climate crisis.Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
Other lessons that could be drawn relate to the public acceptance in some countries of additional surveillance and control in exchange for greater safety… Recent studies show how COVID-19 contact-tracing apps were successfully implemented with mandatory schemes in several East Asian countries, such as China, Taiwan and South Korea… Recent advances in smarter home and transport options make it possible to easily track and manage a large share of individuals’ emissions. Evidence from the roll-out of smart meters and informative displays can be used to design feedback that is highly effective in engaging individuals to reduce their energy-related emissions… In terms of implementation platforms, while in the 2000s carbon allowances were expected to be managed by a card, in the 2020s high ownership would make smartphones the preferred option for accounting and trading (while providing alternative options for the few without smartphones).
No Animal Studies for the Vaccines
By Martin Armstrong | ArmstrongEconomics | September 2, 2021
I find it extremely unbelievable that nobody will investigate this entire scam for what it is. The people behind the vaccines should be dragged in to testify what is going on. Moderna has admitted it took them only 2 days to create the vaccine. In Texas, they are trying to launch a criminal investigation. The FDA is no longer trustworthy, for the normal time to get anything approved is 12 years. What has been released in less than one year with no animal studies? There has been NO TESTING to determine side effects on pregnancy, fertility, or lactation.
It is just stunning that we have politicians REFUSING to look at anything, probably because they are too busy counting their bribes. The White House said under NO condition would they ever fire Fauci, meaning under NO condition will they investigate anyone.
Meanwhile, even the notorious corrupt Snopes had to admit this is TRUE. Despite demanding everyone gets vaccinated, the White House said its own staff DOES NOT need to be vaccinated provided they are routinely checked. So why is the White House the entire exception? Even the military is demanding 100% compliance. Meanwhile, the White House has demanded everyone else receive vaccinations or lose their job.
The fact that they have skipped animal trials is very disturbing. When the government is part of the conspiracy against the public, we will NEVER know the truth about anything. Jack Dorsey has been especially protective of the narrative. Nobody is allowed to question the government no matter what.
Then there are studies revealing that natural immunity to COVID is 13 times better than the vaccines. They try to bury such studies, and they also try to ensure that they are not peer-reviewed in order to discredit them. The Science journalist Alex Berenson was permanently suspended from Twitter one day after his tweets that reported an Israeli study that making this finding that natural immunity from a prior Covid-19 infection is 13 times more effective than vaccines against the delta variant. Twitter is now acting against the very basis of free speech, which is threatening people’s lives. I would love to see Twitter taken down, for they are clearly now responsible for the deaths of many people from vaccine injuries.
To show that this is one giant cover-up, OSHA has instructed employers NOT TO REPORT vaccine injuries suffered by employees if they only “recommend” the shots. Many employers with more than 10 employees are required to keep a record of serious work-related injuries and illnesses. Nobody should volunteer to be vaccinated to satisfy an employer, for you will not be covered for any injury or loss of pay, and you could be fired for not showing up to work for a period of time. However, if employers mandate vaccines to work, then the vaccine injuries should become subject to reporting, lawsuits, and workman’s comp claims.
Tories collaborate with Sturgeon to impose vaccine passports on Scotland
By Gary Oliver | TCW Defending Freedom | September 3, 2021
UNLESS a majority of MSPs are prepared to defend freedom – don’t laugh – Scotland will soon become the first part of the UK to impose vaccine passports.
Subject to the formality of a vote next week at Holyrood, from later this month Scots who wish to enter nightclubs, attend music festivals and large-scale concerts or be part of a five-figure football crowd, must be double-jabbed – and, crucially, be willing to prove it.
The foregoing are just some of the social activities in Scotland which First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has decreed off-limits to healthy people.
Addressing the Scottish Parliament on Wednesday, Sturgeon justified her malevolent measure because ‘case levels are 80 per cent higher now than they were last week and they are five times higher than four weeks ago’. Yet that five-fold rise over the past month continues to have negligible impact on the more important statistics: of 1,099 deaths in Scotland during week ending August 29, only 48 were ‘involving Covid’ – a weekly total and proportion (under 5 per cent) which has been consistent since mid-July.
The spiralling number of so-called cases is largely irrelevant and says only that Covid is circulating in Scotland amongst an adult population which already is overwhelmingly double-jabbed. This seems entirely consistent with recent findings that the fully vaccinated are just as likely to transmit the virus – a fact which, alone, renders redundant Sturgeon’s case for vaccine passports.
Spuriously presented as the benevolent alternative to another lockdown, the principal purpose of the policy is of course what health secretary Humza Yousaf euphemistically terms ‘incentivising vaccination’ – code for coercion of the reticent. Indeed, this week Nicola Sturgeon reiterated her amoral aim of unnecessary universal vaccination and restated her dastardly desire to stick needles into schoolchildren for whom the Covid vaccine is all risk and no personal benefit: ‘We still await advice from the JCVI [Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation] on vaccinating all 12- to 15-year-olds and I very much hope the evidence will allow the JCVI to give a positive recommendation very soon, and we stand ready to implement that if it is the case.’
Shameful. We are also expected to welcome Sturgeon’s assurance that her forthcoming medical apartheid will apply only ‘in very limited settings and never for public services such as transport, hospitals and education’.
Never? Believe that at your peril.
She expects us to be pathetically grateful that ‘certification rules in several other countries cover a far wider range of venues than the ones we are currently considering for Scotland’, and take comfort from her tartan tyranny being less draconian than elsewhere – at least for the moment.
Far from defending freedom, the spineless Scottish Conservatives are contemptible collaborators. Murdo Fraser, the shadow spokesman for Covid Recovery, was already a proponent of vaccine passports: when the SNP had earlier expressed scepticism, fatuous Fraser advocated the abomination as a ‘reasonable proposition’ and a ‘reasonable trade-off for people’.
His leader’s response to the First Minister’s statement was even more lamentable. Instead of speaking up for liberty and personal autonomy, the complaint from Douglas Ross was that ‘the SNP Government is now introducing vaccine passports at the last minute’; depressingly, he bemoaned the Nats ‘wasting months that could have been spent making proper preparations’. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9947533/Nicola-Sturgeon-wants-Scots-use-vaccine-passports-enter-clubs-attend-Premiership-games.html
Pathetic. The only party at Holyrood seemingly prepared to oppose these biometric badges is the Scottish Liberal Democrats.
For once, the lack of LibDem representation in parliament – the party currently has only four MSPs – is a matter of regret. New leader Alex Cole-Hamilton has at least been refreshingly forthright: ‘I will state this clearly where others have not: I and my party are fundamentally opposed to vaccine passports as a matter of principle.’
This is the correct stance. Unfortunately, operators who will be most affected, such as the hospitality and entertainment sectors, are already falling into the trap of questioning the inconsistencies and impracticalities of implementation. Instead of conceding ground by quibbling over detail, it is the principle of vaccine passports which must vehemently be resisted. … Full article
Crocodile Tears for Women’s Rights in Afghanistan
By Jacob G. Hornberger | FFF | September 2, 2021
Interventionist dead-enders are crying crocodile tears over the Taliban’s defeat of the Pentagon and the CIA in Afghanistan because, they say, women’s rights are not likely to be protected by the Taliban.
Oh?
Well, now let’s see. According to the Watson Institute at Brown University, civilian deaths in Afghanistan and Pakistan from 2001 to date exceed 70,000 people.
We don’t know how many of those dead people were women but we can safely assume that a large percentage of them were.
How many of those dead women would have been able to exercise “women’s rights” if the Pentagon and the CIA had won the war?
Answer: None of them. At the risk of belaboring the obvious, women who are dead cannot exercise “women’s rights.”
The interventionist dead-enders would say that those deaths were “worth it” because the women who survived the invasion and occupation would then have been able, with a U.S. military victory, to exercise “women’s rights.”
But where do the Pentagon and the CIA get the moral authority to sacrifice tens of thousands of innocent lives — or even just one innocent life — in order that others will have the potential opportunity to exercise “women’s rights”?
Throughout the 20 years of the Afghanistan war, there was a strange and callous indifference to the people who were being killed in Afghanistan. It’s a reflection of what the national-security state way of life has done to the consciences of the American people. We actually don’t even know the exact number of civilians who were killed. That 70,000 is just an estimate. That’s because early in the conflict, U.S. officials made a conscious decision not to count the Afghan dead. What mattered was the number of U.S. soldiers who were being killed, not the number of Afghans being killed.
In Sunday services in Christian churches across America, ministers would exhort their congregations to “pray for the troops” and “thank them for their service.” Hardly ever would American Christian churchgoers be asked to pray for the people, including women, who were being killed by the troops as part of their “service.” Those lives just didn’t matter.
The interventionist mindset with respect to “women’s rights” was always based on a mathematical calculation. This mindset held that in the quest to establish a regime that protected “women’s rights,” it was morally acceptable to kill some number of Afghan women (and men). The idea was that it was morally permissible to sacrifice the lives of some for the benefit of others.
Moreover, there was never an upward limit on the number of Afghan women (and men) who could be sacrificed for the greater good of “women’s rights.” 70,000? 100,000? 250,000? It didn’t matter. What mattered to the interventionist dead-enders is that a U.S. puppet regime be installed that would protect “women’s rights” for those who weren’t killed by the violence entailed in installing and maintaining such a regime in power.
Think about all the wedding parties that U.S. forces bombed during the 20 years of conflict. Dead brides. Dead mothers of the brides. Dead mothers of the grooms. Dead sisters of the brides and grooms. Dead flower girls. Dead bridal assistants. None of them would be around at the end to celebrate a U.S.-installed regime that protected “women’s rights.” But it was all considered worth it because those who weren’t killed would be able to exercise “women’s rights.”
It’s one thing for people to deliberately sacrifice themselves in what they consider is a grand and glorious cause.
It’s quite another thing to knowingly and intentionally kill innocent people so that others can experience “women’s rights.” It would be difficult to find a more evil notion than that.
Pro Forma Legal Letter For Parents of 12-15 Year-Olds Who Don’t Want Them to Get Jabbed
Lawyers For Liberty UK | September 2, 2021
Are you a parent? Is your 12-15 year old going back to school today? Are you worried about your child being given a Covid vaccine without your permission? Have you communicated with the school, but feel like you are being ignored?
Maybe you are concerned that ‘Gillick Competence‘ will be used to get your 12-15 year-old to make this complex decision alone?
Or that your child will be coerced or peer-pressured into making a decision without access to the full facts?
Lawyers for Liberty in association with the Jonathan Lea Network and Powerless 2 Powerful Parenting have created an anonymous “request a letter” to go from Lawyers for Liberty to your child’s school to let them know of the legal consequences of relying upon a child’s consent for a Covid vaccine, especially if a parent has specifically not consented.
We, as Lawyers For Liberty UK, will send an anonymous letter or email to schools on behalf of parents who are concerned about schools relying on their child to make a decision about whether or not to get jabbed.
If you’d like Lawyers For Liberty to send a letter or email on your behalf, fill in this form. You can read a note on the legal issues involved here and the pro forma letter here.
La Résistance: French Create Their Own Makeshift Restaurant Again to Protest Vax Passports
Reims demonstrators return in greater numbers
By Paul Joseph Watson | Summit News | September 2, 2021
Another example has emerged of French people creating their own makeshift outdoor restaurant in protest against the country’s vaccine passport system.
Video footage out of Reims shows large numbers of people, including many families, camped out on the street enjoying picnics in defiance of the new rule, which bans the unvaccinated from entering bars, cafes or restaurants.
Vaccine passports are also being used to prevent people who haven’t been jabbed from using public transport and accessing a multitude of other venues.
The sit down protest took place at Place d’Erlon, near to restaurants that demonstrators are unable to enter because they haven’t taken the clot shot.
This is the second time the protest has taken place in this location, although this time the numbers appear to be even larger.
As we highlighted last month, anger at the vax pass system is running so rampant that many businesses are refusing to enforce it.
Former Google software engineer Mike Hearn revealed how compliance with the new rules was minimal as he was able to enter numerous venues without showing proof of vaccination or a valid negative test.
This contrasted with the early days of the introduction of the program, during which police were seen patrolling cafes demanding to see people’s medical papers.
Named, shamed and fined – the maskless marauders
By Frederick Edward | TCW Defending Freedom | September 2, 2021
MAGISTRATES have been busy enforcing the laws of Covid-land, with more than 20 miscreants in Northamptonshire fined last week for failing to abide by the rules. They are named and shamed in the Northamptonshire Telegraph, the digital equivalent of the village stocks.
There are a few things to glean from the list of those convicted. We have a small insight, firstly, into the demographic shifts that are happening in the small towns of England such as Corby, Kettering and Wellingborough, with M Jatczak, K Marjani and P Blaga making an appearance.
The relative youth of those who found themselves in court is telling. J Ayre, 22, went to an outdoor gathering of more than two souls, for which he must pay £248. C Hulse, also 22, went to an indoor gathering of more than two. She has to pay £344.
While we do not know the circumstances of these individuals, it is a reminder of the price the youth have been made to pay throughout the last 18 months or so. Stuck in small accommodation or at home with their parents, they have suffered a disproportionate impact from restriction on movement. Moreover, the fines are not insignificant for those unlikely to have much disposable income.
Those caught refusing to abide by Covid regulations include:
U Aurica, 51, fined £344 for being in a corner shop without a mask;
C Oxlade, 21, found maskless in Budgens, as was E McIlreavy, 29, at Asda. Both fined £344;
L Stachura, 29, fined £344 for not wearing a face mask in a pizza takeaway.
R Gilderleft, 26, ‘left his home . . . without reasonable excuse’. He must pay £344.
The local paper website does not make it clear, but the prosecutions are likely to have been under the Coronavirus Act and Health Protection Regulations. Both pieces of legislation were passed in March 2020, the former without a vote in the Commons and the latter presented to the House only after it had come into force.
This is just a snapshot of cases involving Covid-19 rules. The Crown Prosecution Service reported in May 2021 – more than one year into the pandemic – that more than 1,800 had been brought to court, though a high proportion were subsequently identified as incorrectly charged. Indeed, between March 2020 and March 2021, all charges brought under the Coronavirus Act were incorrect, with not a single prosecution resulting from this large expenditure of police and court time.
Around 80 per cent of prosecutions brought under the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) Regulations were correctly charged: it is under this legislation, which includes restrictions on leaving home, social gatherings and the enforcement of mask-wearing, that our Northamptonshire rebels were probably charged.
That a man living in England can be sentenced for leaving his own home is a sign of how far down the path of illiberalism we have strayed: never before in our history have we accepted such perverse rules, a fact made all the more unconscionable by their disproportionality.
What concerns me doubly is that they are enforced with such officiousness and subsequently reported so eagerly by an unquestioning and uncritical press. The Northamptonshire Telegraph says sanctimoniously: ‘The defendants were the latest to be convicted after violating emergency rules – which were designed to slow the spread of coronavirus – between January and April. Many of them were punished after failing to stick to the laws in January or February, at a time when many thousands died as the virus spiraled [sic] out of control.’
In any society which abandons the precepts of freedom, there will be a large group of people who willingly become the enforcers of the new regime. Intoxicated with power, they thrive amid a sea of petty regulations.
Naturally, one will not find names such as Matt Hancock of Neil Ferguson on the lists of those convicted. While the man on the street has the book thrown at him for daring to venture into a supermarket without a mask or seeing some friends, those in the right places and with the right connections can carry out their assignations without repercussion.
We can be convicted and fined for going to a takeaway without a mask, while our elites philander and jet around the world.
How much longer will we tolerate these glaring double standards?
Featured Video
The Battle for Zaporizhzhia – Part 34 of the Anglo-American War on Russia
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
Film Review
We refuse to be silenced’: Gaza film producers blast BBC at BAFTAs
Al Mayadeen | May 11, 2026
The producers of the documentary “Gaza: Doctors Under Attack” used their BAFTA TV Awards win on Sunday to publicly denounce the BBC for refusing to air the film, accusing the network of censoring coverage of “Israel’s” genocidal assault on Gaza and silencing voices that document the atrocities committed against Palestinian medical workers.
The documentary, originally commissioned by the BBC but never broadcast due to what the network called “concerns about impartiality” towards “Israel,” won in the current affairs category at the BAFTA ceremony in London. The film was eventually aired by Channel 4 and investigates the systematic targeting of medical personnel and healthcare infrastructure in Gaza during the ongoing genocide.
Journalist Ramita Navai delivered a speech while accepting the award, in which she stated that the occupation has killed tens of thousands of civilians in Gaza and deliberately targeted hospitals and medical workers. According to the documentary’s investigation, more than 1,700 Palestinian health workers have been killed, and over 400 have been abducted by Israeli forces.
Citing United Nations language, Navai described “Israel’s” attacks against Gaza’s medical infrastructure and personnel as “medicide.” She concluded her remarks with a defiant message: “We refuse to be silenced and censored.” … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- The Battle for Zaporizhzhia – Part 34 of the Anglo-American War on Russia
- The Next Indictment Should Be Against Greg Folkers
- Trump ‘frustrated’ with Cuba’s ability to withstand pressure, considers military action
- Nearly $22 billion secretly shipped to Ukraine – Austrian politician
- France’s Shadow War in Mali
- How Iran’s Strait of Hormuz cable sovereignty could reshape global internet governance
- We refuse to be silenced’: Gaza film producers blast BBC at BAFTAs
- French presidential hopeful pushes to end Russia sanctions
- US suffers ‘total defeat’ in war against Iran, faces irreversible strategic collapse: Neocon analyst
- By rejecting Iran’s proposal, US enters a strategic nightmare with no escape
- If Americans Knew
- The Silence That Meets the Rape of Palestinians
- Motherhood in Gaza Looks Like Caregiving Even When There’s Nothing Left to Give
- Israel used the Nakba to steal not only Palestinians’ land, but their financial wealth too
- Israeli Soldiers Abduct Many Palestinians in Occupied West Bank
- Armed Israeli Colonizers Destroy Agricultural Property, Seize Land in West Bank
- A Palestinian Boy Was Shot Dead by Israeli Troops. His Death Has No ‘Sociological Consequences’
- Israel’s Smotrich orders the uprooting of 3,000 Palestinian trees in West Bank
- Biden’s Genocide Squad Must Be Stopped Before They Strike Again
- ‘War Is a Divine Mission’: The Influential Group Seeking to Bring the Israeli Army Under Torah Law
- UN: 22,000 women have been killed in Gaza since October 2023 – Daily Update
- No Tricks Zone
- New Paleo Research: Modern ‘Climate Change’ Has Had No Apparent Impact On Precipitation Patterns
- 90% Subsidized… Bielefeld Germany’s €7 Million Hydrogen Garbage Truck Fleet Sits Idle
- New Study: Declining Trends In 1980-2023 Tropical Cyclone Frequency, Accumulated Energy
- 46 IPCC Scientists Break Rank, Publicly Challenge Long-Standing Dogmatic Climate Claims
- Another Study Links Warming To Cloud Forcing, Shortwave Radiation, Natural Atmospheric Circulation
- Wind Energy Is Toxic, Hazardous To Human Health, Scientific Review Shows
- Oversupply Of Volatile Solar Energy Leads To Record NEGATIVE Prices!
- New Study: Extreme Heat Records, Heatwaves, Extreme Cold Records Declining Across US Since 1899
- It’s The Cold, Stupid! Cold 20 Times More Lethal Than Heat, Multiple Studies Show
- European Institute For Climate And Energy: “Climate Debate is Seldom About Science”
Aletho News 