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

Please also note that if a business or service provider has a policy which requires individuals to prove a mask exemption above and beyond what is reasonable then this will also be indirect discrimination. You are not required to prove an exemption or wear a badge. Just saying I'm exempt is enough.

In all cases, if a policy is discriminatory against you, you can bring a civil claim against the business or service provider in question. Generally compensation is paid and nearly always negotiated between the parties before the matter gets to court. Before a claim you would make a complaint to the business or service provider in question, and go through their complaints procedure. For this, reason any video, or sound recording, or other evidence is useful. Please note, however, that any court claim must issue within six months less one day of the alleged discriminatory act, (if it is an isolated incident), or the last act of discrimination (if there has been an ongoing series of alleged discriminatory acts) .

To be frank, alot of businesses breached anti discrimination laws when the mask regulations where in force. Alot of health authorities and NHS hospitals and surgeries did too. The prime reason this was the case is because of the PEOPLE THAT WORK IN THE SAME. They are as big a threat to liberty as anything, believing they have some quasi right to make up their own rules. It is therefore good to know that if an employee discriminates against someone, then the employer can also be liable for the acts of their employee in the discrimination under The Equality Act.

Oooh I can't help it. I just want to remind you how powerful it is to know your rights and stand in that power.

Remember the hideous Apple stores during masking. I had a stand up row with them in Cambridge over their entry refusal policies, which they were enforcing with security guards. They had numerous cases filed against them. Hideous twats they are. Here's some info from 2021

https://www.disabilitynewsservice.com/apple-forced-by-ehrc-to-back-down-in-face-mask-discrimination-row/

All Secondary School Students in England To Be Offered Flu Vaccine

From September 1st, 2023, more than three million secondary school pupils in England will be offered a free flu vaccine the government has confirmed. Yet there has been no consultation with parents and most have no idea that the scheme is going ahead...

https://expose-news.com/2023/08/30/all-secondary-school-students-in-england-to-be-offered-flu-vaccine/

Very sound advice on stopping another scamdemic! 👏👏👏

@astandintheparkuk

“Millions of people—myself included—initially believed the Covid-19 vaccine disaster to be a one-off, the result of a novel, rapidly evolving virus combined with a rushed therapeutic packaged in an experimental delivery system. Today I laugh at such naiveté. In Vax-Unvax, Kennedy and Hooker shine a blinding light on the appalling lack of research and blatant propaganda behind the entire inflated and ever-expanding childhood vaccine schedule. The authors’ painstaking investigation and rigorous analyses are rivaled only by their bravery in exposing the depth and breadth of the lies we’ve been told. As a physician who never dreamed of questioning the safety and efficacy claims of routine immunizations and who believed he was protecting his patients and his own children by endorsing them, I am humbled and enraged. Our government, the media, and the powerful and rapacious pharmaceutical industrial complex have deceived, endangered, and gaslit the public for far too long. I hope this explosive and important book finds a worldwide audience and becomes a staple in every pediatrician’s and parent’s library.”
✍️ Dr. Pierre Kory, author of The War on Ivermectin, cofounder of the Front Line Covid-19 Critical Care Alliance, cofounder of the Leading Edge Tele-Health Clinic

To order the book: Skyhorse Publishing

Victory‼️ 😃

Robert F Kennedy, Jr. and Del BigTree finally did it!!

They proved that the long held statement that; “VACCINES don’t cause autism” is completely false! And they have forced the CDC to remove the statement from their website!

The CDC can no longer claim that VACCINES DO NOT CAUSE AUTISM!

Because they do:

In 1980 autism was 1 in 10,000

1986: Then vax industry lost liability and the massive increase in unsafe childhood immunizations began

1990’s: autism 1 in 500
And multi-vial concoctions paired with Tylenol and the ever increasing doses...including neurotoxic aluminum continued...

2018: 1 in 36 children with autism.

2021: American children will get 72 doses of vaccines and there are over 250 in the pipeline.

At this increasing rate, autism is projected to be 1 in 2 children by 2030!!!

https://news.1rj.ru/str/LauraAbolichannel