UK approves vaccination for 5-11 year olds
with some odd decision making as to why
The Naked Emperor’s Newsletter | February 16, 2022
Today, England approved COVID-19 vaccinations for children aged 5 to 11 years old. Wales and Scotland had already done so earlier in the week so England’s approval was inevitable. Approval for children in this age category, who are in a clinical risk group, was already given on 22 December 2021.
The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) have just published their independent report as to why the decision has been made.
Before I look at the report, I want to give a little background information.
In September 2021, before the Omicron variant (so a more virulent Delta was prevalent), the JCVI looked at whether to vaccinate healthy 12 to 15 years olds (those without underlying health conditions). They agreed a precautionary approach “given the very low risk of serious disease in those aged 12 to 15 years without an underlying health condition that puts them at increased risk. Given this very low risk, considerations on the potential harms and benefits of vaccination are very finely balanced”.
They acknowledged that “there is increasingly robust evidence of an association between vaccination with mRNA COVID-19 vaccines and myocarditis”. They say that whilst myocarditis following vaccination is self-limiting and resolves within a short time, the medium to long-term prognosis (including the possibility of persistence of tissue damage resulting from inflammation) is uncertain.
The JCVI concluded that overall “benefits from vaccination are marginally greater than the potential known harms” but acknowledged “that there is considerable uncertainty regarding the magnitude of the potential harms. The margin of benefit, based primarily on a health perspective, is considered too small to support advice on a universal programme of vaccination of otherwise healthy 12 to 15-year-old children at this time. As longer-term data on potential adverse reactions accrue, greater certainty may allow for a reconsideration of the benefits and harms.”
So the conclusion for this older age group, on a health perspective, was not to vaccinate unless clinically vulnerable.
Fast-forward a few months, add in a more mild variant and suddenly the advice changes for an even younger age group. What has changed? Where is the longer-term data that allowed them to reconsider the benefits and harms?
From the outset of this latest advice, a cynical mind might think that they are trying to absolve themselves of all liability. The report uses lots of language such as “JCVI advises a non-urgent offer of two doses” and “informed consent”.
The report begins by saying that the “intention of this offer is to increase the immunity of vaccinated individuals against severe COVID-19 in advance of a potential future wave of COVID-19”. But concludes, “as the COVID-19 pandemic moves further towards endemicity in the UK, JCVI will review whether, in the longer term, an offer of vaccination to this, and other paediatric age groups, continues to be advised”.
So vaccination is advised to prevent severe Covid in a future wave but as we reach endemicity that future wave may never occur. It seems like this decision is based on modelling and we all know how accurate these models are at forecasting.
In summing up the key considerations they actually state the reasons why vaccination is unnecessary. “Most children aged 5 to 11 have asymptomatic or mild disease…[and] are at extremely low risk of developing severe COVID-19 disease. Of those admitted to hospital over the last few weeks comprising the Omicron wave, the average length of hospital stay was 1 to 2 days. A proportion of these admissions are for precautionary reasons”.
They continue “it is estimated that over 85% of all children aged 5 to 11 will have had prior SARS-CoV-2 infection by the end of January 2022… Natural immunity arising from prior infection will contribute towards protection against future infection and severe disease.”
The report says the vaccination is “anticipated to prevent a small number of hospitalisation and intensive care admissions. The extent of these impacts is highly uncertain.”
Student physio told: Take the jab or risk wasting ten years of work
By Sally Beck | TCW Defending Freedom | February 15, 2022
A STUDENT who has spent £100,000 on his education and studied for ten years has been told he may not be allowed to finish his course unless he has a Covid vaccination.
David Shepherd, 28, is studying for his third Masters, an MSc in physiotherapy (pre-registration) at York St John University.
Unless he can complete 18 weeks of practical placements, he will be unable to graduate. He has currently finished 12 weeks.
He said: ‘I have been told that I cannot go to placements where I spend time with patients unless I have a Covid jab.
‘The Covid mRNA vaccine is an experimental vaccine which I will consider after the trials have finished in 2023. It is not like the hepatitis B vaccine mandated for health staff. That has years of safety data. There is no long-term safety data for Covid jabs but there is evidence it can cause the inflammatory heart conditions myocarditis and pericarditis in younger men.
‘Everything we do as health professionals hinges on being able to give our patients informed consent so that they know the risks of any procedure.
‘I have a scientific background and I don’t like being a guinea pig for mRNA vaccine technology.’
David is not alone in his concerns about lack of consent. A charity called Consent, set up by parents in 2018 to challenge doctors’ decisions for their teenagers and children, published a full-page advertisement in Metro insisting that the government stop coercing young people into having Covid vaccinations.
David is training to become a musculoskeletal practitioner attached to a GP’s surgery. Back problems account for 30 per cent of visits to the surgery so it is a job with a high demand and he has invested heavily preparing for it.
The money spent on his courses is secondary to his desire to contribute. He said: ‘I have got to the stage where I almost don’t care about the money. It’s the health principles I care about. And I do not want to be coerced into getting the jab.’
David completed a BSc (Hons) undergraduate degree in sports therapy at the University of Bedfordshire between 2012 and 2015. Then he took three Masters degrees receiving a scholarship from Bedfordshire for the first in 2015, which he failed.
He bounced back and between 2019 to 2020 he studied for an MSc at University College London – a Russell Group university – in Physical Therapy in Musculoskeletal Heathcare and Rehabilitation, a highly skilled and unique programme.
Now he is in his second MA year at York St John. Having seen a friend hospitalised after suffering two mini strokes caused by the vaccine, he does not want to take the risk.
He said: ‘Last year was fine, there was no discussion about mandatory vaccination and students got it when they wanted to. Two students in my bubble are from the Republic of Ireland and they got the vaccine just so that they could travel. They are very critical thinking so felt a bit coerced into it.
‘Then the head of our course began sending out emails last November saying how good it is to get vaccinated. She said it shows how much you care about yourself and everybody else. I hate that rhetoric.
‘I continued with the course and did two placements over 12 weeks, both attached to Hull Royal Infirmary. The first was in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [COPD is a group of respiratory diseases including emphysema and bronchitis], going to people’s houses and helping them clear their lungs.
‘I was shadowing two facilitators; one completely understood my position, the second gave me a hard time and was very worried that patients might infect me, despite the fact I would be wearing a mask.
‘I wasn’t allowed to car share with them because I wasn’t vaccinated. It was a bit insulting, and it was “othering”. It made no sense because at that point we did understand that vaccination wasn’t halting the spread.
‘My second placement was predominantly remote, processing post-Covid outcome measures with a team. In one of the multi-disciplinary meetings, they were discussing a patient who had been injured by the vaccine. They were not convinced that she had been injured and thought she was making it out to be worse than it was. It was an interesting conversation to hear.’
In December, all York St John students received an email saying that due to mandatory vaccines being introduced for healthcare workers, students would need to have a vaccination and if they did not, it would affect their ability to finish the course.
‘I spoke to my new tutor; he’d been working in the NHS for 40 years, and he told me he understood my position,’ David said. ‘All changed after I came back after Christmas. I received an email from him that said I must give evidence of a vaccination by January 25.
‘Before Christmas, my tutor thought I would be able to continue with my placements; I need 1,000 hours practice to be able to register with the Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC) and qualify.
‘I asked if I could finish the academic component and he said probably not, it wasn’t worth carrying on if I couldn’t do the placements.
‘I was trying to be pragmatic, but I was quite upset and very stressed about my future. If I got kicked off the course, I would still have to pay back my maintenance loan, but where would I work and what would I do?’
Since then, the Health Secretary has performed a U-turn on mandatory Covid vaccination for health care workers. Even though Sajid Javid scrapped the mandates, he has pushed back the decision to vaccinate to the regulators. He wants them to send a ‘clear message’ that health care workers should all be vaccinated.
David said: ‘Currently, our regulators, the Chartered Society of Physiotherapists and the Health and Care Professions Council, are against mandatory vaccination. So I’m safe for the time being.’
However government concessions can be short-lived, and we know that they want to bring in vaccination by the back door. So David could find that pressure is applied to his regulators behind the scenes, and he will be prevented from working unless he has a Covid jab.
In a letter to nine regulators, including the General Medical Council, Javid made his thoughts clear. He said that abandoning compulsory vaccines ‘in no way diminishes the importance that health and care workers are vaccinated. Indeed, it is the responsibility of all healthcare professionals to take steps to ensure the safety of patients. As the approach to ensuring vaccine uptake among health and care staff changes it is important that this personal professional responsibility is re-emphasised’.
Free Covid Tests To Be Axed – There Goes The Scamdemic
By Richie Allen | February 15, 2022
I have been saying for nearly two years now, that if asymptomatic people stopped taking covid tests, then the scamdemic would end immediately. The UK government will announce next week, that if people want to continue to test themselves for covid, they will have to pay for it themselves. In theory, that should be game over.
According to The Times today:
Under proposals being finalised in Whitehall, healthy adults would no longer be eligible to order free lateral flow tests on the NHS. There are also plans to scale back PCR testing, with one option being to limit its availability to older adults and people considered to be clinically vulnerable.
The changes, which will be announced after months of speculation, will be announced as part of the government’s Living Safely With Covid strategy, which is due to be published next week. The new strategy could come into effect as soon as next month.
Ministers are facing pressure from the Treasury to reduce the multibillion-pound cost of continuing coronavirus testing on the NHS, with Rishi Sunak, the chancellor, understood to be calling also for the end of most PCR testing for people with Covid-19 symptoms.
The cost of living is skyrocketing. My guess is that most people who have been testing themselves regularly, won’t be as quick to order the tests when they have to pay for them out of their own pockets.
That will put a huge dent in the daily case numbers. In theory, that should be the end of the scam. I say in theory, because who knows what they are holding up their sleeves.
University’s top donor withdraws support over ‘ridiculous’ Covid rules
RT | February 11, 2022
The UK’s Durham University has lost its biggest individual donor, multimillionaire Mark Hillery, who pulled his financial support over Covid-19 rules he slammed as “ridiculous.”
A former hedge fund manager and university alumnus, Hillery donated almost £7m to the university’s Collingwood College between 2015 and 2021. He has funded a number of facilities, including a new arts center that bears his name, according to the student newspaper Palatinate, which was the first to reveal Hillery’s decision to withdraw his support.
The alumnus has actively supported the university for more than 20 years, hosting various events, and even sometimes paying for the students’ drinks in a college bar. He expressed deep regret over what he called “a very depressing state of affairs.”
In an interview with Palatinate he revealed that, prior to his decision to “step back,” he several times contacted the university to express his disagreement over the anti-Covid measures. However, this year the university chose to adopt policies which he said were even stricter than the government’s, including a temporary return to online teaching and face-mask mandates.
“Urgency that should have been displayed to fully normalize [the university] to the same status as the rest of society has not been there,” Hillery said.
He complained that the same “pedantic and ineffective policies that place the priorities of the paying students at the bottom of the pile are simply continued and refined,” adding that he would not visit Durham again “while there is a single Covid-related rule imposed on the students.”
Hillery, who is worth a reported £165 million and ranks 743rd on the Sunday Times Rich List 2020, did not rule out that in the future he might resume his support, underlining, however, that “it’s all far too little too late.”
The university expressed gratitude for Hillery’s “support in many initiatives” but said that the health and safety of its students and staff have always been a priority.
“We have been guided at all times by the local trajectory of the pandemic which varied at different times across the UK,” a spokesperson added.
RIP Freedom of Speech
In lockstep in multiple countries
The Naked Emperor’s Newsletter | February 12, 2022
As with so many things that are happening at the moment, the attack on free speech is happening in multiple countries at the same time.
Firstly in the UK.
A draft Online Safety Bill was first presented to Parliament in May 2021 but has been strengthened in the last few weeks. Originally the draft Bill focussed on large web companies but the government has recently announced that more changes would be made and new criminal offences added.
One of these new offences would be spreading Covid-19 disinformation under a crime of sending a false communication. This offence would be committed if a person sends a communication they know to be false with the intention to cause non-trivial emotional, psychological or physical harm. The maximum sentence is 51 weeks.
The average person might think it is reasonable to imprison somebody for communicating something they know to be false with the intention to cause harm. However, what is “false” and what is “harm”? The last few years have shown us that these are now very subjective topics. Information that was true in 2019 became false in 2020 and is starting to be true again in 2022. A truth that is communicated to somebody who believes it to be false may cause them emotional or psychological harm. Intention is necessary for the crime to take place but if something is deemed to be false and deemed to cause harm then it could be argued that if the person who communicated the information, knew the information was on the “harmful list” then intention was there.
And who is deciding what information is false? The government? That almost sounds like a punchline to a joke. We’ll just end up with news articles such as the one below – Sponsored by the UK Government (see the text in blue).
The Bill was already censorial enough, making online companies remove content which was deemed to be harmful but not illegal. As we have seen in recent times, corporations’ misinformation policies have been arbitrary enough, which will only worsen with governments deciding what is true and what is false. Now, in a step one-removed from pre-crime, these companies will be made to proactively “prevent people being exposed in the first place”.
The government press release on the strengthening of this bill says that “to proactively tackle the priority offences, firms will need to make sure the features, functionalities and algorithms of their services are designed to prevent their users encountering them and minimise the length of time this content is available. This could be achieved by automated or human content moderation, banning illegal search terms, spotting suspicious users and having effective systems in place to prevent banned users opening new accounts”.
In almost Orwellian double-speak the press release says the Bill “will better protect people’s right to free expression online”. What this means is, it will better protect people’s free expression of government approved material. It continues by saying “it will have to be proven in court that a defendant sent a communication without any reasonable excuse and did so intending to cause serious distress or worse, with exemptions for communication which contributes to a matter of public interest”. So the government says something is a matter of public interest (e.g. vaccines) and suddenly intention doesn’t have to be proven.
Please sign this online petition to remove requirements that specifically target lawful speech from the Bill.
Next to the US.
At almost the same time, the US sent out a bulletin “Summary of Terrorism Threat to the U.S. Homeland”.
This states that “the United States remains in a heightened threat environment fueled by several factors, including an online environment filled with false or misleading narratives and conspiracy theories, and other forms of mis- dis- and mal-information (MDM) introduced and/or amplified by foreign and domestic threat actors. These threat actors seek to exacerbate societal friction to sow discord and undermine public trust in government institutions to encourage unrest, which could potentially inspire acts of violence”.
According to the bulletin, “the proliferation of false or misleading narratives, which sow discord or undermine public trust in U.S. government institutions” has “increased the volatility, unpredictability, and complexity of the threat environment”.
Key factors contributing to the current heightened threat environment include “widespread online proliferation of false or misleading narratives regarding unsubstantiated widespread election fraud and COVID-19”.
Furthermore, “as COVID-19 restrictions continue to decrease nationwide, increased access to commercial and government facilities and the rising number of mass gatherings could provide increased opportunities for individuals looking to commit acts of violence to do so, often with little or no warning. Meanwhile, COVID-19 mitigation measures—particularly COVID-19 vaccine and mask mandates—have been used by domestic violent extremists to justify violence since 2020 and could continue to inspire these extremists to target government, healthcare, and academic institutions that they associate with those measures”.
So in a step up from the UK’s response, the US is labelling individuals who produce any MDM as terrorists. Obviously, any language that incites violence is unacceptable but to confuse people encouraging unrest with those discussing whether Ivermectin could help save lives is completely unacceptable.
And finally in Canada.
Again, as if in lockstep, Justin Trudeau is trying to revive his controversial Internet legislation bill. Once known as Bill C-10, to fool those unintelligent Covid deniers, it has been changed to Bill C-11.
There are concerns that the legislation could be used to censor social media. The government have denied this but experts hold the opposite view. Who to believe, hmmm? The Toronto Sun reports that Trudeau is using the current national tensions as a smokescreen to let them slip in unpopular pieces of legislation. Never let a good crisis go to waste!
When we remove freedom of speech and censorship of controversial topics becomes common place, we turn into a dangerous society. Not only can authors be imprisoned for airing their views but, just as importantly, debate becomes restricted resulting in truths being hidden and novel and radical ideas supressed.
But if they can’t censor you, maybe they’ll just give you a morality pill so you don’t produce the stuff in the first place!
The UK wants to criminalize “misinformation” online as its own health service gets caught posting falsehoods
By Dan Frieth | Reclaim The Net | February 11, 2022
Less than a week after the UK proposed criminalizing the posting of some types of “knowingly false” information online, England’s National Health Service has taken down a social media video over inaccurate information.
Last week, NHS England posted a video on its Twitter account with more than half-a-million followers to promote vaccination in kids.
The video claimed that 1% of children will be hospitalized because of Covid, 136 kids in the UK had died because of Covid, and 117,000 children have “long Covid.”
The video went viral attracting comments and retweets from some of the most popular influencers in the health category.
But some, including Dr. Robert Hughes, a clinical research fellow at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, questioned the accuracy of the data.
“As both a parent and scientist who has been involved in research on symptom duration and severity of covid in children, the cited statistics didn’t make sense to me,” Hughes wrote in an article in UnHerd. “The idea that 1% of children with Covid are hospitalized for it didn’t pass the ‘sniff test.’”
The video also shared the story of a kid aged 11 that was suffering from long Covid. According to Hughes, the story contradicted the vaccination guidance in the UK, as it does not even recommend vaccination for that age group.
Additionally, there is not yet any substantial evidence to support that the vaccine prevents long Covid.
Hughes also notes that NHS England was silent when he and others questioned the accuracy of the data.
“Several people agreed with me, sharing their working for why these numbers are at best long outdated, may be orders of magnitude out, and risk undermining confidence in vaccine communications and uptake.
“But others seemed to dig in, praising both the content and tone of the messaging when challenged, and directing the discussion into an important, but different, one about the merits of extending Covid vaccination to children rather than the need for accurate and honest communication about vaccination,” Dr. Hughes wrote for UnHerd.
Hughes contacted the Office of the Statistics Regulator about the numbers. The Statistics Regulator agreed that it was important that the NHS provides accurate figures.
“It is important that figures provided by NHSE&I are accurate and reliable,” the Office of the Statistics Regulator said. “In this case the claim made in the video fell short of these expectations – we contacted NHSE&I and it acknowledged that the data were historic and had methodological shortcomings. We are therefore glad that the content has now been removed from Twitter.”
Before its removal, the video had already been widely shared.
Narrative collapse quickens pace
The Naked Emperor’s Newsletter | February 9, 2022
Boris Johnson, the Prime Minister of the UK, has, today announced that all coronavirus restrictions will be lifted in less than two weeks. This is a month earlier than initially proposed, showing the accelerating change in the narrative.
He said he plans to abolish the remaining restrictions in the UK, including the self-isolation rules after testing positive. It is not clear, however, whether this will also apply to the unvaccinated.
Mr Johnson said “I can tell the house today, that it is my intention to return on the first day after the half term recess to present our strategy for living with Covid”. What is this new normal that the Prime Minister has in plan? Surely living with Covid means going back to the old normal, not even thinking about Covid anymore?
In other parts of the world, Portugal, Greece and France are to ease travel restrictions and Italy is changing its mask mandate for outdoor areas. The EU is removing testing regimes for fully vaccinated travellers, again leaving the nasty after taste that the new narrative is to go back to normal whilst leaving restrictions on the unvaccinated.
Across the pond, in Canada, Saskatchewan Premier, Scott Moe, announced the end to Covid passes and masks, signalling a victory for the protesting Truckers. Will Trudeau realise which way the wind is blowing and cave in but try to spin a victory or will he double down?
Fauci has said that America is almost past the ‘full blown’ pandemic phase and will be winding down restrictions and masks ‘soon’.
Although Scottish First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, admitted that Scotland is entering a ‘calmer’ stage of the pandemic, she still decided that masks and Covid certification will remain.
The Scottish public, on the other hand, are saying enough is enough. Data from their Test AND Protect system shows that 91.5% of incomplete cases (purple), in the recent few weeks, are due to the public not responding to the surveillance calls.
It seems the narrative is collapsing and faster and faster each day. However, whilst this may be due to Omicron being more mild, I remain sceptical. The reasons being given are the same reasons many of us said restrictions were unnecessary in the first place. Now, all of a sudden, the corona fog is receding and everyone, in multiple countries and along similar time scales, is seeing the light. Or are they? Will all restrictions be removed or will they remain all but in name for the unvaccinated?
Will they remove all legislation to ensure none of these measures will never return again? If the legislation stays then it will be all too easy for restrictions to return when vaccines wane and seasonal illnesses return in the winter.
Will they remove all restrictions for everybody, including the unvaccinated? That means no additional testing regimes for the unvaccinated and no back-door use of Covid passes.
Or are we truly seeing the end of the pandemic? Some of the pharma documentation that I am about to write an article on may suggest that they see the writing is on the wall.
The next few weeks will certainly be interesting and the key will be to keep an eye on the small print.
UK to arm Ukraine with anti-ship missiles against Russia – Kiev’s envoy
RT | February 8, 2022
The UK will supply Kiev with anti-ship missiles to potentially use against the Russian Navy in the Black Sea, Ukraine’s envoy to Britain, Vadim Pristayko, said in an interview with Novoye Radio on Tuesday. The official did not specify what munitions London is sending, nor the date they are set to arrive in Ukraine.
“For the first time, our armed forces, the Navy in particular, will receive real weapons, missiles that will finally enable us to have something against the Russians in the Black and Azov Seas,” the diplomat said.
The upcoming delivery of anti-ship missiles apparently falls under the £1.7 billion ($2.3 billion) deal, reached by London and Kiev last year. Under the agreement, the UK provides Ukraine with a loan, which Kiev has to pay back within 10 years, with the funds set to be spent on navy-related military hardware supplied by Britain. According to Pristayko, the equipment includes two minesweepers that are currently being “refitted” at a dockyard in Scotland, as well as other hardware.
“Our armed forces had never received such serious funds from abroad for their development,” the diplomat said.
Ukraine has enjoyed an uptick in foreign military aid in recent months amid fears of an allegedly looming attack by its neighbor, Russia. The UK has been among the top arms suppliers of Ukraine, sending in a large cache of NLAW shoulder-fired anti-tank missiles back in January, as well as deploying additional military instructors to teach Ukrainian forces to operate the systems.
Western media outlets and top politicians have repeatedly warned of Moscow’s allegedly imminent invasion of Ukraine, which has failed to materialize so far, with no solid evidence of the existence of such plans ever produced. Moscow has consistently rejected seeking to attack Kiev, denying claims that the movement of its troops in the relative vicinity of the Belarusian or Ukrainian border somehow threaten its neighbor.
Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmitry Kuleba on Monday revealed the scale of foreign military aid Ukraine has already received.
“Ukraine has gotten more international political and economic support, as well as security,” the top diplomat said. “Over these weeks and months, we have received more than $1.5 billion, and more than 1,000 tons of arms and armaments.”
UK “reforming” human rights law… compulsory vaccines on the horizon?
By Kit Knightly | OffGuardian | February 8, 2022
The UK government is planning to re-work its human rights law to put an increased emphasis on “personal responsibility” and “duties to the wider society”, as well as preventing people “abusing” their rights.
Sounds pretty awful, doesn’t it? But let’s go back to the beginning.
In December 2020 the UK government announced they would be looking into Human Rights reform in the near future.
These announcements became more concrete a year later on December 14th 2021, when the government began a “consultation” on restructuring the Human Rights Act.
The plan is to replace current rights legislation with a so-called “UK Bill of Rights”, a policy dating from the Cameron administration. The new “bill of rights” would update and replace the Human Rights Act.
As a brief summary of UK human rights law:
Some rights are enshrined in common law from the days of Magna Carta, but the vast majority of the time when we talk about “human rights” in the UK we’re referring to the Human Rights Act 1998.
This act was written into law as essentially a verbatim copy of the European Convention on Human Rights passed by the Council of Europe in the 1950s.
The purpose of writing the international treaty into domestic law was so British citizens could take human rights cases to domestic courts, instead of having to go to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.
As with most human rights laws, from the UN Declaration of Human Rights to the US Constitution, a lot of the time the Human Rights Act is flat-out ignored, or at best worked around. But it does exist, and it does offer some protection of the individual from the power of the state.
Will that continue to be the case after these “reforms”?
The UK’s current “consultation” on Human Rights “reform” is set to end next month (March 2022), & whatever its final recommendations are will likely not be published for several months after that. But, while we can’t yet be certain exactly what they will say…we can get some rough ideas from what they have released so far.
Dominic Raab, the Justice Secretary who commissioned the consultation, recently said in an interview on LBC:
Our plans for a Bill of Rights will strengthen typically British rights like freedom of speech and trial by jury, while preventing abuses of the system and adding a healthy dose of common sense.”
If you’re anything like me, the phrases “abuses of the system” and “common sense” just made your inner cynic twitch, but there’s no real detail there.
Perhaps you’re thinking, at this point, that if you read the whole briefing document there will be nothing there to justify any paranoia.
… except I have, and there is.
If you drill down through the filler, and can read through the bureaucratic language, there are some pretty concerning red flags waving around, especially in their stated aims [emphasis added]:
Our reforms will be a check on the expansion and inflation of rights without democratic oversight and consent, and will provide greater legal certainty.
[The Bill of Rights will] provide greater clarity regarding the interpretation of certain rights, such as the right to respect for private and family life, by guiding the UK courts in interpreting the rights and balancing them with the interests of our society as a whole
[The Bill of Rights will] provide more certainty for public authorities to discharge the functions Parliament has given them, without the fear that this will expose them to costly human rights litigation
The government is committed to ensuring that the biggest social media companies protect users from abuse and harm, and in doing so ensuring that everyone can enjoy their right to freedom of expression free from the fear of abuse.
Protecting authorities from legal consequences, stamping out “abuse” online, subordinating privacy to national security… these are pretty routine aims of new legislation these days. They are expected, almost cliche.
The biggest and freshest warning sign is the sheer number of mentions of “duty” or “responsibility” or “the wider society”.
For example, this sentence from the forward written by Raab himself:
our system must strike the proper balance of rights and responsibilities, individual liberty and the public interest,
And in point 6 of the Executive Summary…
The Bill of Rights will make sure a proper balance is struck between individuals’ rights, personal responsibility, and the wider public interest.
… and then point 9 too:
[The Bill of rights will] recognise that responsibilities exist alongside rights, and that these should be reflected in the approach to balancing qualified rights and the remedies available for human rights claims
The header at the top of Chapter 3, “The Case for Reforming UK Human Rights Law”, bemoans:
the growth of a ‘rights culture’ that has displaced due focus on personal responsibility and the public interest […] public protection [is] put at risk by the exponential expansion of rights
Going into greater detail further down:
The international human rights framework recognises that not all rights are absolute and that an individual’s rights may need to be balanced, either against the rights of others or against the wider public interest. Many of the rights in the Convention are ‘qualified’, recognising explicitly the need to respect the rights of others and the broader needs of society […] The idea that rights come alongside duties and responsibilities is steeped in the UK tradition of liberty
And then again, in the first paragraph from section IV “Emphasising the role of responsibilities within the human rights framework” [emphasis added]:
We all have responsibilities in our society: to society (such as to obey the law and pay taxes), to our families, and to people around us. Everyone holds human rights whether or not they undertake their responsibilities, particularly the absolute rights in the Convention such as the prohibition on torture. Nonetheless, the government believes that our new human rights framework should reflect the importance of responsibilities.
It carries on in equally concerning fashion…
when a court is considering the proportionality of an interference with a person’s qualified rights, it will consider the extent to which the person has fulfilled their own relevant responsibilities.
The overall message is clear: Human rights can be tempered with “responsibilities” & anyone who does not fulfil their “responsibilities” is less deserving of the legal protection of their rights.
This is neither new thinking nor new language. Throughout “Covid times” we have seen talk of liberty parried with talk of duty, but it predates Covid too.
For years free speech has been tempered with talk of “being offensive” or “spreading misinformation”. The right to privacy has long been secondary to “national security” and “keeping people safe”.
Human Rights law is regularly trumped by The Patriot Act or Investigatory Powers Act or a dozen equally appalling pieces of legislation from both sides of the Atlantic.
But now, rather than bypassing human rights laws, this government is going to – to quote Raab – “rebuild them”. Meaning shred the existing ones and write all new ones. Ones that use “common sense” to make sure people are “responsible” and don’t “abuse” their rights.
Within the scope of this so-called “reform” is the desire to add conditions to basic human liberties. Exchanging “self-evident” truths, “endowed upon men at their creation”, for a quid-pro-quo agreement with the state.
This is a seismic shift in the very definition of “rights”.
The entire point of human rights is that they are innate and inalienable, they exist for everyone everywhere, and are not in the gift of any authority.
But now, rather, the UK government is arguing your rights are given to you at their behest, and that they come at the cost of expected duty.
And given all the talk during the “pandemic” regarding “protecting others” and being “responsible” – with masks, lockdowns and most especially vaccines – it’s not hard to see how these new “duties” could be applied in the future.
There’s no direct talk of compulsory vaccination, yet, but if these new “human rights” laws are made a reality, the next pandemic could be much harder to navigate.
You can read the complete consultation on human rights reform here.
Mandatory Vaccination via the Back Door
The Naked Emperor’s Newsletter | February 8, 2022
There has been a lot of fanfare about the recent decision to abandon mandatory COVID-19 vaccinations for National Health Service (NHS) staff in England. However, the pressure is still on.
The welcome U-turn was announced on 31 January, when Sajid Javid (the health secretary) said that whilst looking at the risks and opportunities of the vaccination as a condition of deployment policy, there were 2 new factors to consider. Firstly, the population as a whole is better protected against hospitalisation and secondly, Omicron is intrinsically less severe. He then concluded that while vaccination remains our very best line of defence, he no longer believes it is proportionate to require vaccination through statute.
All reasonably sensible stuff so far and this is what the majority of the media picked up on. However, he wasn’t finished yet. He continued with the following statement (emphasis my own):
Some basic facts remain: vaccines save lives, and everyone working in health and social care has a professional duty to be vaccinated against COVID-19.
So, while we will seek to end vaccination as a condition of deployment in health and social care settings using statute, I am taking the following steps:
First, I have written to professional regulators operating across health to ask them to urgently review current guidance to registrants on vaccinations, including COVID-19, to emphasise their professional responsibilities in this area.
Second, I have asked the NHS to review its policies on the hiring of new staff and the deployment of existing staff, taking into account their vaccination status.
And third, I’ve asked my officials to consult on updating my department’s code of practice, which applies to all CQC registered providers of all healthcare and social care in England.
They will consult on strengthening requirements in relation to COVID-19 including reflecting the latest advice on infection prevention control.
So it seems that, as suspected, the U-turn didn’t occur because it was the sensible path to follow but because of political motives. Too much pressure was building up in support of the unvaccinated health care workers. Furthermore, there would have been nowhere to hide politically, when 10 percent of the health care staff were sacked, causing massive chaos in an already overstretched service.
However, the pressure is still on for the staff who have chosen not to be vaccinated. Firstly, the regulations have not been revoked yet, they will be subject to a consultation and parliamentary approval. Secondly, similar to my article on the removal of human rights, there will be professional pressure applied to staff in the interests of the greater good. Thirdly, policies will be changed making it very difficult for unvaccinated workers. As one nurse put it:
No vaccine mandate but; you can’t change jobs, take a promotion, progress in your career, and you will forever be coerced into taking a jab and live with constant fear that one day you could be sacked for not taking it.
This is not over!
Yesterday, a Times article reported that Sajid Javid has told medical regulators to insist staff get jabs. It says the health secretary has said that “medical regulators must crack down on unvaccinated staff”. The article reports that “he has written to nine regulators, including the General Medical Council (GMC) and Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC). Abandoning compulsory vaccines ‘in no way diminished the importance that health and care workers are vaccinated. Indeed, it is the responsibility of all health care professionals to take steps to ensure the safety of patients’. [Sajid is] ‘concerned that the guidance from the professional regulators on this issue is currently limited to a statement about vaccination in general’ rather than about Covid-19 in particular”. Javid told the regulators “that they should ‘urgently’ work with senior health leaders ‘to ensure yourself that your current guidance on vaccination for Covid, sends a clear message to registrants’.”
I don’t think there will be much opposition at management level in the NHS, when individuals such as Chris Hopson (CEO of NHS Providers) and Matthew Taylor (CEO of NHS Confederation) issued a joint statement saying “NHS leaders are frustrated to have such a significant change in policy at the 11th hour, given all the hard and complex work that has gone into meeting the deadline set by the government. They recognise the reasons . . . but there will be concern at what this means for wider messaging about the importance of vaccination for the population as a whole.”
Also yesterday, England’s Chief Medical Officer (Chris Whitty), together with the Chief Nursing Officer, Chief Midwifery Officer, Medical Directors and others wrote to NHS colleagues about their professional responsibility to get vaccinated.
In the letter they say “COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective because there have been over 10 billion doses given worldwide”. They also say that the vaccines “provide protection from becoming infected”. I don’t know how they can claim that when data from the UK Health Security Agency itself, shows infection rates to be higher in the majority of vaccinated age groups.
The main gist of the letter is to guilt health care workers into getting vaccinated. They use words such as “professional responsibility”, “the public reasonably expect” and “to protect our patients”. The letter ends by saying “the great majority of heathcare workers have already done so [been vaccinated]. We hope those of you who have not will consider doing so now.
The level of coercion to get vaccinated, particular with health care workers, is unacceptable and is not dying down. For a novel vaccine, with no medium to long term studies on side effects, the choice is down to the individual. The data suggests that the vaccinated are more likely to be infected, not less. So, even if the vaccine does protect someone on an individual basis, they are more likely to be infectious around patients, not less. Especially, if the vaccine masks any symptoms meaning a vaccinated individual is more likely to be infected and not realise they are.
Mandatory vaccinations for healthcare workers has been abolished for now, but the pressure is still being placed on them. Will new workers have to be vaccinated, will vaccination be necessary for certain roles or to progress careers. Or will the constant shaming or being made to feel guilty be too much for the individuals who have chosen not to be vaccinated and will they have to leave anyway but this time, without any legal redress or compensation?
The crescendoing chatter that this is for some greater good is also deeply concerning. The majority of individuals, when left to their own devices, will choose the correct path when deciding on the finely balanced risks between what is good for themselves and the public. Most people will always want to do the right thing and very often choose to help others over themselves. The only danger in society right now is the thought that public health officials or ministers can decide what is good for an individual based on a perceived threat to society. This top-down policy is not only dangerous but won’t achieve the results they are looking for.
I will conclude with a comment made by a reader on one of my previous articles:
“As a Human Geneticist in a profession that was responsible for the horrors of the Eugenics movement, I have been deeply steeped in ethics and the importance of abiding by codes of conduct especially those created after WW2 such as the Nuremberg Codes. As soon as one strays from these codes, one immediately falls into the danger of recreating the past horrors. Individual rights must always be respected over any other consideration and any abrogation of those rights no matter what the rationale must always be challenged and justified and as temporary and minimal as possible. One thing I learned taking courses in the mathematics of epidemiology is that public health are not trained in ethics in the same way. In fact they are almost trained in the opposite to always think of the good of the whole of society over the rights of individuals. Of all branches of medical health out there, it does not surprise me that tyranny came from public health.”
Featured Video
Seyed M. Marandi: Toward Total War in the Middle East
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
The Geopolitics behind the War in Yemen (I)
By Mahdi Darius NAZEMROAYA | Strategic Culture Foundation | 30.03.2015
The United States and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia became very uneasy when the Yemenese or Yemenite movement of the Houthi or Ansarallah (meaning the supporters of God in Arabic) gained control of Yemen’s capital, Sanaa/Sana, in September 2014. The US-supported Yemenite President Abd-Rabbuh Manṣour Al-Hadi was humiliatingly forced to share power with the Houthis and the coalition of northern Yemenese tribes that had helped them enter Sana. Al-Hadi declared that negotiations for a Yemeni national unity government would take place and his allies the US and Saudi Arabia tried to use a new national dialogue and mediated talks to co-opt and pacify the Houthis.
The truth has been turned on its head about the war in Yemen. The war and ousting of President Abd-Rabbuh Manṣour Al-Hadi in Yemen are not the results of «Houthi coup» in Yemen. It is the opposite. Al-Hadi was ousted, because with Saudi and US support he tried to backtrack on the power sharing agreements he had made and return Yemen to authoritarian rule. The ousting of President Al-Hadi by the Houthis and their political allies was an unexpected reaction to the takeover Al-Hadi was planning with Washington and the House of Saudi. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Pakistan-Iran talks secure LNG shipment to Islamabad through Hormuz
- Black Sea grain crisis puts global wheat supplies under pressure
- IRGC air defenses destroy another US MQ-1 drone over Strait of Hormuz
- Imran Khan’s entire immediate family detained in Pakistan ahead of mass protest demanding his release
- EU nation detains former presidential frontrunner
- Leaked: Britain’s Sham Conviction Of Hashim Thaci
- Seyed M. Marandi: U.S. Strike Imminent – Toward Total War in the Middle East
- Russia Voted Under Fire. Washington Is Loading the Tankers.
- 12 Things Your Oncologist Was Trained Not to Tell You
- Anthrax Attacks Paved Way for COVID-Era ‘Junk Drugs and Vaccines’
- If Americans Knew
- Israeli Attacks in Gaza Kill at Least Seven Palestinians Over Three Days, including Woman and Child
- Trump’s militarization of Washington DC as he pursues Israel’s war against Iran
- Why Israel Fears This Searing New Documentary
- Huckabee aide solicited cash gifts from Israelis
- This isn’t sci-fi, AI is already killing people
- ‘The Most Brutal Thing’: Investigation Reveals Execution of Elderly Woman in Rafah
- Inside Israel’s ‘soft’ ethnic cleansing plan for Gaza through the eyes of its victims
- New online database tracks pro-Israel political donations in the United States
- Israeli president pardons soldier convicted for killing wounded Palestinian
- Singer Ed Sheeran says his ‘heart broken’ by Gaza devastation, addresses Macklemore controversy
- No Tricks Zone
- 2025 Nature Paper Claiming Worsening Global Drought Gets RETRACTED …Heavily Flawed
- New Study: ‘Global Drought Shows No Detectable Recent Acceleration Under Climate Warming’
- Economic Masterminds: German Socialists Suggest Taxing Productivity Gains Stemming From Using AI
- The South China Sea Has Not Been Cooperating With The Climate Change Narrative
- Energy Crisis: Germany Enters Heating Season With Historically Low Gas Reserve Fill Levels
- New Study: The Antarctic Ice Sheet Gained Mass From 2020-2024 Due To Staggering Snow And Ice Accumulation
- Study: Ocean Heating Rates From Thousands Of Years Ago ‘Dwarf’ Modern Ocean Heating Rates
- Climate Extremists Target, Attack Large-Scale Power Grid Infrastructure In Germany!
- New Study: Antarctic Ice Melt Has Contributed Less Than 1 Centimeter To Sea Level Rise In The Last 30 Years
- Fear Of Debate: Alarmist German Climate Scientist Calls On Mainstream Media To Discredit Skeptic Voices
Aletho News 