What kind of worthless shyster lawyer or benighted judge doesn't understand what duress means? Get the jab or lose your job is arm twisting. Blatant "under duress" situation.
Losing your job apparently is not duress ENOUGH. Losing your life - maybe. But remember the bioweapon shots were propagandized to SAVE lives. As long as the defendants say that - they're golden in their defense against duress. They never overtly said "get these shots workers or we will kill you." The irony is that they technically did - "get these shots that will kill you." It's quite the legal pretzel to make a winning duress argument against the bioweapon shots.
9. Your tax dollars (pounds, whatever fiat you use)
10. The schools where they indoctrinate your kids
And the best part, the vaxx never stopped transmission. Ever.
They will NEVER admit fault. That was never going to happen. Here in the US, it doesn't even matter if they did, there is no liability for Pharma and even if fraud is proven, finding a judge to enforce our Constitution is almost impossible.
And if I write the way to fix this, I am a terrorist and face rendition to a 3rd world hell hole to be tortured by petty criminals.
The only way now is to watch their house of cards collapse on itself through early death of a large amount of young citizens.
I wonder if they'll start issuing Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine to stop the rampant colds/fluels/covid that will kill a lot of people over the next 3 years without a viable treatment.
I don't think we'll see much greater death rates than +10% excess. And that almost all in older stratas.
However, birth rates ARE way down and if a life not lived that otherwise would have been, is considered a death (kinda in my book) then yes, we've already lost over a hundred thousand infants in the UK alone.
“the ruling highlighted that the law also permits difficult but essential decisions to be taken where these rights interfere in order to protect others’ inviolable rights – specifically the right to life.” Have I got this right - others’ inviolable right to life supersedes my inviolable right to life when I choose not to be jabbed with the equivalent of dubious pharmaceutical slurry in a syringe?
I do not see how an employer is permitted to expose an employee to a known risk of death. In fact, they have a duty to protect employees from such hazards, under COSHH regulations.
"There have been nine (medically certified) deaths in Scotland in which the underlying cause of death was due to the adverse effects of vaccination against COVID-19, and four further deaths where an adverse effect was mentioned on the death certificate. "
There may well be many other deaths that went undetected, given that excess mortality (non-covid) is 10% higher than usual.
Memories! Sounds like my last job. NONE of the federal contractor private workplaces has changed course, even though the mandate was struck down by the 5th circ. I guess they are afraid of coerced workers getting angry that unshotted lepers will be allowed to have a job.
If only the Nuremberg Code had used the term ‘Medical Treatment’ instead of ‘Medical Experiment’. But the adjudicators of the Doctors Trial never dreamed that anyone could be worse than the Nazis.
That said, I believe the case remains solid that these “vaccines” were and remain experimental. The were only authorized under an EUA, largely because of the use of the new technology and the rushed clinical trials. Sounds like Experimental to me. If the legal case could be established that the vaccines are indeed experimental, then the very first of the Ten Points of the Nuremberg Code clearly prohibits any kind of coercion in their use or administration. In my opinion this is still the most solid legal case to be made without any data whatsoever. Of course the data is damning in itself, but the deniers won’t acknowledge it.
Then let's make 2023 the year of holding people to account. If anyone makes a claim, in law, they must prove it. So, if anyone makes a claim to you, no matter how small, no matter how big, make them prove it or be quiet.
The courts are corrupt and the agencies of "experts" have been captured.
They have all the "proof" they need, and they can just make up some bullshit about you anyway. The MSM has the corrupt courts' and captured agencies' backs.
That is why in law, not legal, you hold the individual who is in front of you making the claim - for example the one telling you to wear a mask - to account. They are attempting to remove your right to air, that is a breach of your peace, and a trespass upon you. Deal with the one in front of you, and do it with confidence. Get them to prove their claim. You won't need to go to court.
Fair point. Until you meet up with the COVID cops who will beat you for not wearing a mask. It happened all over the world. There's plenty of video evidence for that. Then they jail you and fine you. I mean, it's not happening right now, but it's def a possibility going forward.
We can work one on one with other civilians. Sure. Maybe they'll snitch on you. Worse yet, the social credit AI catches you. The Beast System is coming for us all. It's a runaway train with no brakes straight into the #GreatReset
There will be no bargaining. No logic. No law. No legal recourse in the coming days.
Get out of the cities. Now. There's still time. Network. Pray.
Everyone that I've confronted face to face has run away from me bleating like a sheep. I guess that is a good thing. But the confrontations never end. People refuse to prove anything - they just hike up their skirts and run away like little pansies.
Are these people still operating under the delusion that these (and other) vaccines reduce your ability to infect others?
The opposite appears to be true with these mRNAs -- the more shots, the higher your rate of COVID infection.
So, wouldn't it make more sense for this judge to rule that people who got the shots can be terminated? Or, is this just another case with Leftist thought where intentions matter far more than outcomes?
Here when they asked politicians why members of parliament and members of government are exempt they said: "anyway our vaccination rate is extremely high" seriously?
It appears that once one becomes "educated" in the law, one has the tendency to lose the sense of what is right. They can't see nuance, nor can they understand logic. (Edited due to comment)
It's not educated, it's indoctrinated. Education assumes critical thinking, or it used to assume that.... Other than that, we are in complete agreement. :)
Appears that wherever we turn, the officials are "compromised" in some fashion. I think mass formation is still entrenched in a lot of areas of government. I don't think it is anything like "mass hypnosis" but more a side effect of our wiring as a species. It is hard not to give into the idea of consensus and not conform. Yet, here we are.
Heck we are still using consensus to argue against consensus. And we are using appeal to experts to argue against the experts that bought into the narrative.
I agree that there is an element of indoctrination. You can't go through the educational system without being indoctrinated on some level. I saw it in those around me who attained their PhD's, how over time their thinking changed.
I would say that it is more than indoctrination though. I think after being in law, you have to deal with the fact that the guilty go free and the innocent are convicted, and this too can lead to cognitive dissonance, also all sorts of other side effects which could be traced back to a "crisis of conscience." And a lot of these contingencies have the best of intentions behind them. For instance, the guilty go free on technicalities, that part of the process was compromised . A similar problem occurs when the innocent are convicted. DNA evidence was found, they were found at the scene of a crime, and their alibi didn't pan out. They may very well be innocent, but all signs point to their guilt.
Then of course there is the pressure of money, of loss of reputation.
I think a lot of it is laziness and reticence. Most people appear to prefer being told what to do. They don’t have to take any responsibility. People are so fearful of making a mistake based on their own judgement. It’s obvious to me that TPTB are really good at manipulating society and they will just get even better. Many people I know complain about many aspects of woke behaviour but say they can’t make a difference, they can’t be bothered. Makes me wonder how they live their shallow, head in the sand lives. I pity them.
Legal does not mean moral, or even factually/empirically true.
It just means legal.
So if the rule is "Anyone saying 'Jehova' is to be stoned", that means any judge reading out th law must either be killed by stoning or light up a doobie.
Therein lies part of the indoctrination, and the cognitive dissonance that can result from it. What kind of world do we live in where the legal can be immoral and vice versa? It is no wonder the legal system is the way it is. And I think this can have a huge impact on those who choose the legal profession. I recently talked with a friend who spoke about this very issue, of watching the innocent being penalized, and watching the guilty go free.
We speak of justice as if there is some undergirding of morality. If someone is abused, molested, murdered, robbed, etc. we expect the legal system to remedy that wrong. And yet, very much of the legal system is predicated on your statement, which I don't disagree with in terms of reality, it's just that it shouldn't be that way.
I know the ideal is unicorns, flowers, and sunshine and rainbows but shouldn't we aspire to have it move in that direction? And yet too often the path of least resistance is to argue in favor of the legal while not even bothering with the moral. Although if you listen to pening and closing statements, oftentimes they are rife with these very same words meant to sway a judge or jury.
In college I would often say, and it was an adage of time time "you can't legislate morality" and a similar thing could be said about "adjudicate" morality. And I think at the center of this argument, is a core truth that you can't make judgments that are moral, or even make legislation that is moral, that morality comes from the person making those decisions and standing up for that legislation. That no amount of legality can make anyone moral...nor can any law created by legislators.
The silver lining is also that similarly no amount of legislation and judgment can remove it either. So you can be censored, lose your job, etc. and still you won't have the truth stripped from you.
The judgement is in direct violation of the Convention. I do hope they can appeal.
What kind of worthless shyster lawyer or benighted judge doesn't understand what duress means? Get the jab or lose your job is arm twisting. Blatant "under duress" situation.
The Covidian kind.
It's literally bifurcated society into the cult of the self stabbing maskers and those who are heretics.
The Nuremberg Code actually spells this out, in case they don't understand it.
Of course they understand it. They are PART of the system that is doing this to us.
This decision is sinister, illogical, legal reasoning. Evil has absolutely no shame.
Losing your job apparently is not duress ENOUGH. Losing your life - maybe. But remember the bioweapon shots were propagandized to SAVE lives. As long as the defendants say that - they're golden in their defense against duress. They never overtly said "get these shots workers or we will kill you." The irony is that they technically did - "get these shots that will kill you." It's quite the legal pretzel to make a winning duress argument against the bioweapon shots.
The Bad Guys own
1. The labs that made the virus
2. The patents for the vaccine
3. The media that pushed the vaxx
4. The laws that allowed the pushing of the vaxx
5. The judges who defend the "mandate"
6. The companies that push "mandates"
7. The cops with the guns
8. The jails
9. Your tax dollars (pounds, whatever fiat you use)
10. The schools where they indoctrinate your kids
And the best part, the vaxx never stopped transmission. Ever.
They will NEVER admit fault. That was never going to happen. Here in the US, it doesn't even matter if they did, there is no liability for Pharma and even if fraud is proven, finding a judge to enforce our Constitution is almost impossible.
And if I write the way to fix this, I am a terrorist and face rendition to a 3rd world hell hole to be tortured by petty criminals.
The only way now is to watch their house of cards collapse on itself through early death of a large amount of young citizens.
I wonder if they'll start issuing Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine to stop the rampant colds/fluels/covid that will kill a lot of people over the next 3 years without a viable treatment.
I don't think we'll see much greater death rates than +10% excess. And that almost all in older stratas.
However, birth rates ARE way down and if a life not lived that otherwise would have been, is considered a death (kinda in my book) then yes, we've already lost over a hundred thousand infants in the UK alone.
10% excess IS a huge number. Especially if it continues for extended periods of time.
Yes, but also an unnoticeable number of its not pointed out.
UK 500,000 die a year
50,000 excess
But...
500,000 NET immigration (500,000 left a million entered) in the last 12 months.
So nobody is gonna be walking empty streets anytime soon.
God will fix it.
This again, sounds like it would make a great Dr. Seuss like Children's book.
It should have only ever been fiction!
People didn't die from covid, they died from malpractice because they were denied early treatment.
And they were given Remdesivir (aka Run-Death-Is-Near)
“the ruling highlighted that the law also permits difficult but essential decisions to be taken where these rights interfere in order to protect others’ inviolable rights – specifically the right to life.” Have I got this right - others’ inviolable right to life supersedes my inviolable right to life when I choose not to be jabbed with the equivalent of dubious pharmaceutical slurry in a syringe?
Yes. Your "inviolable" rights are quite violable if violating them supports the great reset.
6uild 6ack 6etter
You can live under the bridge unjabbed though... According to them.
Live on the dole. Make the government support you for its insane evil actions.
I do not see how an employer is permitted to expose an employee to a known risk of death. In fact, they have a duty to protect employees from such hazards, under COSHH regulations.
https://www.nrscotland.gov.uk/news/2022/deaths-involving-covid-19-monthly-analysis-for-november-2022
"There have been nine (medically certified) deaths in Scotland in which the underlying cause of death was due to the adverse effects of vaccination against COVID-19, and four further deaths where an adverse effect was mentioned on the death certificate. "
There may well be many other deaths that went undetected, given that excess mortality (non-covid) is 10% higher than usual.
There was no risk of death from the vacks. It was perfectly safe. Or, hadn’t you heard? 😠
Here in Scotland, two negatives equals a positive.
Aye, right!
In America these scumbags played the same legal wordsmithing mumbojumo.
At first it was a $100 check to get vaccinated.
Then it was “You can’t leave the job site for any reason if your unvaccinated, so you don’t bring the disease back in.”
Then it was “No jab no job.”
Real email exchange.
“If you don’t take the vaccine, you’re voluntarily quitting.”
“No, I’m not quitting, I want to work for you, I just don’t want to take the vaccine.”
“We’ll consider this your resignation.”
“I’m not resigning, I’m refusing the vaccine.”
“We will process your resignation paperwork.”
Memories! Sounds like my last job. NONE of the federal contractor private workplaces has changed course, even though the mandate was struck down by the 5th circ. I guess they are afraid of coerced workers getting angry that unshotted lepers will be allowed to have a job.
Misery loves company.
If only the Nuremberg Code had used the term ‘Medical Treatment’ instead of ‘Medical Experiment’. But the adjudicators of the Doctors Trial never dreamed that anyone could be worse than the Nazis.
That said, I believe the case remains solid that these “vaccines” were and remain experimental. The were only authorized under an EUA, largely because of the use of the new technology and the rushed clinical trials. Sounds like Experimental to me. If the legal case could be established that the vaccines are indeed experimental, then the very first of the Ten Points of the Nuremberg Code clearly prohibits any kind of coercion in their use or administration. In my opinion this is still the most solid legal case to be made without any data whatsoever. Of course the data is damning in itself, but the deniers won’t acknowledge it.
Then let's make 2023 the year of holding people to account. If anyone makes a claim, in law, they must prove it. So, if anyone makes a claim to you, no matter how small, no matter how big, make them prove it or be quiet.
The courts are corrupt and the agencies of "experts" have been captured.
They have all the "proof" they need, and they can just make up some bullshit about you anyway. The MSM has the corrupt courts' and captured agencies' backs.
That is why in law, not legal, you hold the individual who is in front of you making the claim - for example the one telling you to wear a mask - to account. They are attempting to remove your right to air, that is a breach of your peace, and a trespass upon you. Deal with the one in front of you, and do it with confidence. Get them to prove their claim. You won't need to go to court.
Fair point. Until you meet up with the COVID cops who will beat you for not wearing a mask. It happened all over the world. There's plenty of video evidence for that. Then they jail you and fine you. I mean, it's not happening right now, but it's def a possibility going forward.
We can work one on one with other civilians. Sure. Maybe they'll snitch on you. Worse yet, the social credit AI catches you. The Beast System is coming for us all. It's a runaway train with no brakes straight into the #GreatReset
There will be no bargaining. No logic. No law. No legal recourse in the coming days.
Get out of the cities. Now. There's still time. Network. Pray.
Sometimes I wonder if this "Great Reset" everyone is talking about is really "The Great Tribulation?"
Everyone that I've confronted face to face has run away from me bleating like a sheep. I guess that is a good thing. But the confrontations never end. People refuse to prove anything - they just hike up their skirts and run away like little pansies.
There is a process, if you can run fast enough to catch them :)
Yes, it's the same old "done in good faith" argument that gets the abuser off the legal hook. Canada's judges are doing the same.
Knew in May2020 when the hospitality industry law cases were thrown out that we've lost the judges and law courts as an institution we can rely on.
Onto the heap with the rest of the institutions that seemed to create a foundation of commonsense, ethics, and morality in my young life.
Hence my username.
Yep. It doesn't look like the courts will save us. They've made a mockery of the rule of law.
Are these people still operating under the delusion that these (and other) vaccines reduce your ability to infect others?
The opposite appears to be true with these mRNAs -- the more shots, the higher your rate of COVID infection.
So, wouldn't it make more sense for this judge to rule that people who got the shots can be terminated? Or, is this just another case with Leftist thought where intentions matter far more than outcomes?
Here in the good old USA… mandating COVID 19 shots in 2021 for all government employees, contractors, healthcare workers, etc…
But wait…. Members of Congress and their staff are EXEMPT from this MANDATE? We must never forget!
I rest my case..
https://www.newsweek.com/members-congress-staff-exempt-biden-covid-vaccine-mandate-1627859
Don't worry it was not only USA.
Here when they asked politicians why members of parliament and members of government are exempt they said: "anyway our vaccination rate is extremely high" seriously?
anyway our vaccination rate is extremely high" seriously? Yes-colored water.
This alone is a gigantic red flag. Rules for thee but not for me. There are too many red flags to list. The list would be pages long.
This ruling seems extremely strange when you simply tweak the parameters a little bit:
Of course you have to sleep with the boss to keep your job! If you don't like it, find a new job!
How many government lawyers are comfortable making that case? At least the dick comes out.
Hahaha, crude but a good point.
Sometimes you have to go crude to drive the point home!
This decision is sinister, illogical, legal reasoning. Evil has absolutely no shame.
Yep.
This is extremely worrying.
It appears that once one becomes "educated" in the law, one has the tendency to lose the sense of what is right. They can't see nuance, nor can they understand logic. (Edited due to comment)
It's not educated, it's indoctrinated. Education assumes critical thinking, or it used to assume that.... Other than that, we are in complete agreement. :)
Appears that wherever we turn, the officials are "compromised" in some fashion. I think mass formation is still entrenched in a lot of areas of government. I don't think it is anything like "mass hypnosis" but more a side effect of our wiring as a species. It is hard not to give into the idea of consensus and not conform. Yet, here we are.
Heck we are still using consensus to argue against consensus. And we are using appeal to experts to argue against the experts that bought into the narrative.
I agree that there is an element of indoctrination. You can't go through the educational system without being indoctrinated on some level. I saw it in those around me who attained their PhD's, how over time their thinking changed.
I would say that it is more than indoctrination though. I think after being in law, you have to deal with the fact that the guilty go free and the innocent are convicted, and this too can lead to cognitive dissonance, also all sorts of other side effects which could be traced back to a "crisis of conscience." And a lot of these contingencies have the best of intentions behind them. For instance, the guilty go free on technicalities, that part of the process was compromised . A similar problem occurs when the innocent are convicted. DNA evidence was found, they were found at the scene of a crime, and their alibi didn't pan out. They may very well be innocent, but all signs point to their guilt.
Then of course there is the pressure of money, of loss of reputation.
I think a lot of it is laziness and reticence. Most people appear to prefer being told what to do. They don’t have to take any responsibility. People are so fearful of making a mistake based on their own judgement. It’s obvious to me that TPTB are really good at manipulating society and they will just get even better. Many people I know complain about many aspects of woke behaviour but say they can’t make a difference, they can’t be bothered. Makes me wonder how they live their shallow, head in the sand lives. I pity them.
Legal does not mean moral, or even factually/empirically true.
It just means legal.
So if the rule is "Anyone saying 'Jehova' is to be stoned", that means any judge reading out th law must either be killed by stoning or light up a doobie.
Therein lies part of the indoctrination, and the cognitive dissonance that can result from it. What kind of world do we live in where the legal can be immoral and vice versa? It is no wonder the legal system is the way it is. And I think this can have a huge impact on those who choose the legal profession. I recently talked with a friend who spoke about this very issue, of watching the innocent being penalized, and watching the guilty go free.
We speak of justice as if there is some undergirding of morality. If someone is abused, molested, murdered, robbed, etc. we expect the legal system to remedy that wrong. And yet, very much of the legal system is predicated on your statement, which I don't disagree with in terms of reality, it's just that it shouldn't be that way.
I know the ideal is unicorns, flowers, and sunshine and rainbows but shouldn't we aspire to have it move in that direction? And yet too often the path of least resistance is to argue in favor of the legal while not even bothering with the moral. Although if you listen to pening and closing statements, oftentimes they are rife with these very same words meant to sway a judge or jury.
In college I would often say, and it was an adage of time time "you can't legislate morality" and a similar thing could be said about "adjudicate" morality. And I think at the center of this argument, is a core truth that you can't make judgments that are moral, or even make legislation that is moral, that morality comes from the person making those decisions and standing up for that legislation. That no amount of legality can make anyone moral...nor can any law created by legislators.
The silver lining is also that similarly no amount of legislation and judgment can remove it either. So you can be censored, lose your job, etc. and still you won't have the truth stripped from you.
Beautiful comment and 100% true.