Please see below a copy of an email that was sent to our local MP for Mid Sussex Mims Davies at the end of January.
Dear Mims
I hope you are well.
It is great news that the government has finally backed down from the ill-conceived (to put it politely) plan to try and mandate pharmaceutical injections for NHS workers. I was pleased to see in Hansard the debate in the House of Commons on Monday 24th regarding mandatory vaccinations for employees where the vast majority of MPs at the debate were strongly against the NHS vaccine mandate.
However, we need to keep going until we have ensured that all medical mandates are completely outlawed for good and can never be brought back. Freedom of choice is a fundamental tenet of any society and should always be paramount.
Bodily autonomy and voluntary, informed consent without coercion or penalty must be a line which we are never prepared to cross, NO MATTER WHAT. This is the only way to ensure that respect and dignity is given to all human beings, who are unique and made in the image of God and cannot just be sacrificed for “the greater good”. If this line is crossed there will be no end in sight to medical interventions that those in the pharmaceutical industry will try to push through with the connivance of those in Whitehall and Westminster willing to be compromised, or just look the other way and remain compliant with, and unquestioning of, the money driven narrative of the day.
We recently sent the attached letter (authored by the Together campaign group) to the main trade unions.
I thought you would be interested to know that the The Trades Union Congress (a federation of trade unions in England and Wales, representing the majority of trade unions with a total of about 5.5 million members) responded to me on 26th January as follows (you will see the actual email below):
“In line with the position of our trade unions in the sector, the TUC opposes mandatory vaccinations for the NHS and social care workforce.
The TUC and our affiliated unions have raised with government our concerns about the impact on staffing and employment.”
Furthermore, I thought I would set out below some of the main entrenched legal principles relating to coerced and mandated injections.
First of all, basic, established law indicates that patients must give their full, free, and informed consent to medical treatment. Covid-19 vaccination is evidently a medical treatment; under section 45E of the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 persons must not be required to undergo medical treatment, which includes vaccination and other prophylactic (preventative) treatment (unless legislation exists to the contrary). Secondly, everyone has the right to provide their free and informed consent to medical treatment and reject such treatment if they so choose; the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom decided as such in Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board [2015] UKSC 11.
Lady Hale eloquently surmised at paragraph [108] of the judgment that:
‘[i]t is now well recognised that the interest which the law of negligence protects is a person’s interest in their own physical and psychiatric integrity, an important feature of which is their autonomy, their freedom to decide what shall and shall not be done with their body’.
Applying, or attempting to apply a medical intervention without fully informed consent of the patient amounts to a criminal offence of assault and battery; potentially the patient may also claim in tort for battery. It is no defence that a doctor was acting under statute or regulation: see R (on the application of Wilkinson) v Broadmoor Hospital [2001] EWCA Civ 1545, notably Lady Hale’s comments at paragraph 56:
‘…what was done to the patient, and what it may well be proposed to do again, is an assault unless done with his consent or other lawful justification. The people who carry out such assaults, and in particular the responsible medical officer (RMO) who requires it to be done, may be sued in the ordinary way for the tort of battery. The fact that those responsible are exercising statutory powers makes no difference. The analogy with the police and the prison service in the exercise of their powers of arrest and detention is a very helpful one. The fact that they are performing statutory functions which may sometimes be susceptible to judicial review does not relieve them of responsibility in tort for wrongful acts. It is worth remembering that patients may also be detained under the Mental Health Act in private hospitals.’
Clinicians must also not subject any individual to inhumane and degrading treatment causing psychiatric harm, or be complicit in doing so. Such treatment would be contrary to Article 3 and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). In relation to ECtHR case law on informed consent to medical treatment and Article 8, see YF v Turkey App no 24209/94 (ECtHR, 22 July 2003). Forcing someone to subject themselves to an injection or lose their job and, ipso facto, their shelter, resources, livelihood and quality of life is inhumane and degrading treatment.
Thank you for considering this important email.
Best regards
Jonathan