30 cases are being bought against the government for deaths in care homes in 2020.

You will recall that in 2022 a High Court judgement ruled that the discharge of hospital patients into care homes without testing was unlawful.

Between early March and early June 2020, nearly 20,000 care home residents in England and Wales died "with Covid-19".

I feel sorry for these people I really do because I saw what was going on in care homes at the start of this.

Residents had DNRs put on them, do not admit to hospital orders, they were not given antibiotics and if they had been they may well have been OK. They were masked up inside, there was a lack of staff and in some cases residents were not even given their usual medication because of "risk of aspiration". If they became ill or agitated they were then instead given midazolam and morphine injections in line with the protocol expressed in NG163, and we know what then happened. No autopsies, and death certs written up on "suspicion".

In my own opinion most care home residents died because of the above, not "Covid" and if anyone believes a bloody test before these people left hospital, a test that cannot tell you what is wrong with you, would have saved them, they are mistaken. And these families are not asking the right questions. For instance, if their relatives were so ill "with Covid" in the care home, why were they not taken to hospital - hint, there was a policy of do not admit them, that's why.

As much as I want this government to be held accountable for what they did to care home residents, and particularly the DHSC and Matt Hancock, I cannot support cases such as these because they are starting from the premise that these people died of Covid and a test would have saved them. They need to start from the facts - old people were locked away with DNRs, they were kept away from hospitals, from antibiotics, and they were given end of life medication instead.

In my opinion these cases are allowed to run because they are a limited hang out. The families don't know this and they of course want justice, and I really feel for them. But they are scratching the surface of what really happened.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-66582873

UK Column News - 28th August 2023

Brian Gerrish, David Scott and Mark Anderson with today’s UK Column News.

00:32 ULEZ If You Want To; The Law's Not For LEZing
07:26 A Carbon Zero World? 
15:58 Admiral Of Doom: Radakin Ramps Up The Bloodshed
25:39 Viewers' E-mails
31:21 Scottish Green Leader Patrick Harvie With Some Classic Projection
38:15 Lies, Damned Lies And The British Press
44:38 Sterling Goes ARS Up: Argentina In The Pits
50:57 The Hypocrisy Of Them: Mark Carney
55:55 Pressure From The Bottom + Pressure From The Top = Manufacturing Consent
58:55 And Finally: Just Try And Lock Us Down Again

Sources: www.ukcolumn.org/video/uk-column-news-28th-august-2023

Debi Evans Blog: 29 August 2023

Debi Evans continues her weekly blog of startling events in healthcare. This week, she discusses the insensitive tick-box culture that has emerged within the healthcare profession, and the continuation of scaremongering in the form of new Covid variants.

www.ukcolumn.org/blogs/debi-evans-blog-29-august-2023

For links to 1000 (one thousand)
scientific papers on COVID vaccine
injury...
https://community.covidvaccineinjuries.com/compilation-peer-reviewed-medical-papers-of-covid-vaccine-injuries/

Tucker Carlson: "The Biden administration blew up Nord Stream... It was the biggest act of industrial sabotage in history, the largest manmade CO2 emission in history, and an attack on Germany." (1 minute, 9 seconds)

They’re soggy, don’t work and will kill you.

But at least you’re doing the right thing.

We just want to give a legal perspective on the issue of any institution requiring you to wear a mask. We are speaking from the England and Wales jurisdiction only here.

Let's go back first, to 2020, when masking became a legislative issue under The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings) (England) Regulations. You will recall the "exemptions" under these regulations which were so broad that everyone could have claimed an exemption if they wished to under the "physical or mental illness or impairment" category. Suffice to say, panic or anxiety about covering your breathing hole would be enough to fulfil the illness part of this.

The mask regulations expired on 27th January 2022, but some health settings and indeed businesses still require people to wear masks now. Many people ask us "can they do this".

Broadly the answer is yes for private businesses, because they can set their own terms of entry to premises or use of services. However this is caveated by such terms being lawful and particularly not discriminating against someone under The Equality Act 2010. This is where most businesses fall down. No discriminating applied under the mask regulations, hence the broad exemption category above. No discriminating still applies now too.

If you are unable to wear a mask due to a disability and a business simply has a broad brush "no mask no entry" policy so that you couldn't even step foot through the door, this is a clear case of direct discrimination.

If you are unable to wear a mask due to a disability, and a business fails to make a reasonable adjustment for your disability, this is a case of indirect discrimination against you. Both direct and indirect discrimination fall under The Equality Act 2010 if the issue is connected to a protected characteristic. There are nine protected characteristics:

age,
disability, (see below)
gender reassignment,
marriage and civil partnership,
pregnancy and maternity,
race,
religion or belief,
sex, and
sexual orientation

In the Equality Act a disability means a physical or a mental condition which has a substantial and long-term impact on your ability to do normal day to day activities.

You are covered by the Equality Act if you have a progressive condition like HIV, cancer or multiple sclerosis, even if you are currently able to carry out normal day to day activities. You are protected as soon as you are diagnosed with a progressive condition.

You are also covered by the Equality Act if you had a disability in the past. For example, if you had a mental health condition in the past which lasted for over 12 months, but you have now recovered, you are still protected from discrimination because of that disability.

The above also applies to medical institutions. In addition, medical institutions, as public authorities, are also required to comply with the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA). The NHS are a public authority, and therefore must comply with the HRA.

Article 14 of the ECHR states that no one should be denied access to any of the other rights in the ECHR on the basis of certain characteristics. The list of characteristics in Article 14 is more open-ended than the list in the Equality Act. This means that other characteristics might be relevant for a discrimination claim against the NHS or other public authorities. However, it must be shown that another ECHR right is under threat due to that characteristic.

For instance, if someone was denied access to emergency life-saving treatment because they were unable to wear a mask, this would breach their right to life (Article 2) in a discriminatory way (Article 14). However, each case is considered on its own merits.

By way of example, if the medical treatment in question was elective, Article 2 would not be relevant and therefore a discrimination claim could not be brought on that basis.

Cont'd below