Johns Hopkins Medical Centre - World Coronavirus infection Map by Country.

[RobbieGong]

Yes, but who behind the scenes might have been pulling the strings of Salmond or Sturgeon and controlling the agenda? Trust me, that happens all the time in politics (and elsewhere) and touches upon what I was discussing with you earlier, about people being surreptitiously manipulated and controlled by, let's call them, 'higher powers'.

Johnson's having his strings pulled too, by others (such as his advisors and superiors, and the 'powers that be' above them). This is no new thing in politics. All these people are simply figureheads, appointed to push through an agenda for those who ultimately are in control! That's how the system works.

Anyway, your views of the video are not unexpected, as given how accustomed I'm becoming to how your mind appears to work, I'd have been very surprised if you'd reached any other conclusion

Could I ask you then how "confused" you found the following:

I'd like your views [shown near the end of the video] specifically on the amendments, as a result of new Coronavirus Regulations, which have been carried out to the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984, such as the "Power to order health measures in relation to persons"?

There's some very dangerous shit listed there, which the government could easily use COVID-19 as an excuse to implement, and which would subsequently, effectively remove all of our human rights!!

If you can't see that, then well, I really don't know what to say.........

Marco.

Can only agree, a lot of this is worrying, very worrying and people need to wake up, stand up, and challenge otherwise we very well could potentially be subject to who knows whatever certain powers will for us, as part of them attaining and fulfilling whatever it is they may wish.

It's like a horror movie unfolding, only we may well be living it.

[Mikeandvan]

Yes, but who behind the scenes might have been pulling the strings of Salmond or Sturgeon and controlling the agenda? Trust me, that happens all the time in politics (and elsewhere) and touches upon what I was discussing with you earlier, about people being surreptitiously manipulated and controlled by, let's call them, 'higher powers'.

Johnson's having his strings pulled too, by others (such as his advisors and superiors, and the 'powers that be' above them). This is no new thing in politics. All these people are simply figureheads, appointed to push through an agenda for those who ultimately are in control! That's how the system works.

Anyway, your views of the video are not unexpected, as given how accustomed I'm becoming to how your mind appears to work, I'd have been very surprised if you'd reached any other conclusion

Could I ask you then how "confused" you found the following:

I'd like your views [shown near the end of the video] specifically on the amendments, as a result of new Coronavirus Regulations, which have been carried out to the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984, such as the "Power to order health measures in relation to persons"?

There's some very dangerous shit listed there, which the government could easily use COVID-19 as an excuse to implement, and which would subsequently, effectively remove all of our human rights!!

If you can't see that, then well, I really don't know what to say.........

Marco.

So who exactly is really in control then?

jjjjjjjuuuuu by Mike Van, on Flickr

[Joe]

Well, let's inject some facts into the discussion:

https://fullfact.org/online/control-...t-coronavirus/

'A number of posts on Facebook have claimed that the laws in the UK have been changed because of Covid-19 so that you can be forcibly vaccinated and that it is an offence to ask what’s in the vaccine. A YouTube video has also made similar claims, which was shared by Katie Hopkins. The video claims that the law changed from 27 April.

“THE U.K. LAWS CHANGED YESTERDAY - 27 APRIL 2020 ALL OF OUR HUMAN RIGHTS HAVE BEEN STRIPPED AWAY.

The Control of Diseases Act changed yesterday, 27 April 2020 with immediate effect.

You WILL be forceably vaccinated Doctor patient confidentiality is no longer and you can be detained, all your belongings ceased, your family members detained. Even by asking what’s in the vaccine before having it, is classed as an offence.

IF this vaccine was safe, why would they change the laws to enforce it?”

Facebook user, 29 April 2020

“Just to let you know that the first thing that’ll strike you when you look up this act on the government website is that it says changes to legislation, and this has been updated on the 27th April 2020. So just a day or so ago. And it’s come into force on that day. So this is applicable from now.”

Youtube video, 28 April 2020
It’s not correct that the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 was amended on 27 April. It’s not true that this law says you can be forcibly vaccinated either. The 1984 law specifies that you can’t be forced to have medical treatment, which includes a vaccine, but the law does give magistrates the power to prevent the spread of the disease in other ways, like forcing people to isolate themselves.

The legislation hasn’t been changed in this way

The National Archives, which manages the online legislation database, told us that it was not true that the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 was amended on 27 April.

At the time of writing, the last time this legislation was amended was on 25 March, which happened as a result of the Coronavirus 2020 Act. This change didn’t add anything to the 1984 act but meant that a part of it would temporarily no longer apply. The part that was changed was section 46(3). Up to 25 March, local authorities were not allowed to arrange for a cremation against the wishes of the deceased. The House of Commons Library says that “Under the new powers, this would be suspended. However, the Government has stated that personal choice for body disposal will be respected as far as possible.”

The government has said it’s extremely unlikely that a deceased person’s preferences on burial would not be adhered to, and the legislation says local authorities must take the person’s wishes into account.

You cannot be forced to have a vaccination

There are a number of things the law allows to prevent the spread of a disease. Forcing people to have medical treatment is not one of them. And the law specifies that by treatment, it “includes vaccination and other prophylactic treatment”. Prophylactic means something to prevent the disease. So this law does not mean you can be forced to have a vaccination (or treatment). Lawyer, Louise Hooper of Garden Court Chambers writes in a blog post: “The Act makes explicitly clear that the power to make such regulations does not include mandatory treatment or vaccination.”

The law mentions nothing about people not being allowed to ask what’s in a vaccine. The government’s own guidelines on vaccinations more generally says individuals “must be given enough information to enable them to make a decision before they can give consent.”

[Marco]

So firstly, who owns [more importantly controls the agenda] of "Fullfact.org"?

I'll get to the rest later, possibly tomorrow, as I've got a few things to do.

Marco.

[Joe]

Fullfact is an independent registered charity:

https://fullfact.org/about/funding/

But you don't need to take their word for it; the website for the 1984 Act shows all amendments, the most recent being on 25 March:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/22/2020-03-25

All very dull, and nothing to get worked up about.

[Marco]

Jeez, Joe, are you blind?

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/22/2020-03-25

Scroll down to Section 45G "Power to order health measures in relation to persons". Read ALL of that properly, but specifically subsection (2) (j) and (k):

(j) that P be subject to restrictions on where P goes or with whom P has contact;

(k) that P abstain from working or trading.

WOT??? COME AGAIN??

Do you understand what that means and its potential implications? There's a lot more stuff in there too, which is quite simply WRONG on any moral or humane grounds.

Note also that under the new amendments to the Act, a Justice of the Peace will be able to enforce the above under the full power of the Secretary of the State!!

Marco.

P.S "Fullfact.org" may be a registered charity, but you don't know who's 'at the helm', as it were, controlling the content or what their political bias is - and I notice that many of the 'facts' that they've stated have come from sources that aren't exactly completely unbiased.

[Marco]

Now have a look at the Government's Coronavirus Act 2020 (Schedule 21): http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/...ule/21/enacted

Essentially, the WHOLE of this act represents the total removal of your civil liberties, if you're "suspected of being potentially infectious" from COVID-19.

Please read ALL of it, but pay particular attention to Part 2, Section 6, I quote:

Powers to direct or remove persons to a place suitable for screening and assessment:

6 (1) This paragraph applies if, during a transmission control period, a public health officer has reasonable grounds to suspect that a person in England is potentially infectious.

(2) The public health officer may, subject to sub-paragraph (3)—

(a) direct the person to go immediately to a place specified in the direction which is suitable for screening and assessment,

(b) remove the person to a place suitable for screening and assessment, or

(c) request a constable to remove the person to a place suitable for screening and assessment (and the constable may then do so).

(3) A public health officer may exercise the powers conferred by this paragraph in relation to a person only if the officer considers that it is necessary and proportionate to do so—

(a) in the interests of the person,

(b) for the protection of other people, or

(c) for the maintenance of public health.

(4) Where a public health officer exercises the powers conferred by this paragraph, the officer must inform that person—

(a) of the reason for directing or removing them, and

(b) that it is an offence—

(i) in a case where a person is directed, to fail without reasonable excuse to comply with the direction, or(ii)in a case where a person is removed (by the officer or by a constable), to abscond.

That's essentially North Korea!! WAVE BYE-BYE to your FREEDOM, FOLKS



Marco.

[RobbieGong]

Has this act gone through yet ?

[Marco]

If anyone is as shocked to the core by all of this as me, then please CONTACT YOUR LOCAL MP and make them aware of the information above, quite simply because the vast majority of them are likely to be completely unaware of it! It appears that it's all being 'hush-hushed', with the details party only to a select few.

That's why none it is currently being scrutinised or debated in Westminster!! So........

LET'S CREATE SOME DISSENTING VOICES IN PARLIAMENT AND FORCE THE GOVERNMENT TO MAKE A U-TURN!!!

MARCO.

[Marco]

Has this act gone through yet ?

Status: This is the original version (as it was originally enacted).

Well, what does "enacted" mean?

Marco.