Written at FSJ's Law Analysis Page with research provided by Angel Ronan Lex Scripta ™: The Pre entry test requirements offend the laws of the country. Requiring vaccines for travel also offend the Courts and laws of the country. If you say there is a disease, that is one thing but if you harass people to comply to ordinances involving that alleged disease, how do we ensure that we are not causing alarm and distress contrary to the Criminal Law? This is not to question any endeavour but the there has to be a proportionate and legal method on addressing the alleged disease that does not offend our laws. This never happened during Sars or Aids except for public education to stop the spread. No civil liberties or criminal laws in corollary were violated. If you do Delta or Omicron, what would that be? Can it stand satisfy some quantitative analysis? Does the Omciron approximate Herpes, Aids, TB or TB or TB? Is that Alarm, distress or intimidation? What measures are lawful? Mandatory Medical treatment before travelling is above and beyond what is lawful. Is it also alarm or distress or harassment contrary to the Public Order Act 1986? Is it intimidation contrary to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 ? Click here for more.

Written at FSJ's Law Analysis Page with research provided by  Angel Ronan Lex Scripta ™:   The Pre entry test requirements offend the laws of the country.  Requiring vaccines for travel also offend the Courts and laws of the country.  If you say there is a disease, that is one thing but if  you harass people to comply to ordinances involving that alleged disease, how do we ensure that we are not causing alarm and distress contrary to the Criminal Law? This is not to question any endeavour but the there has to be a proportionate and legal method on addressing the alleged disease that does not offend our laws.   This never happened during Sars or Aids except for public education to stop the spread. No civil liberties or criminal laws in corollary were violated.  If you do Delta or Omicron, what would that be? Can it stand satisfy some quantitative analysis? Does the Omciron approximate Herpes, Aids, TB or TB or TB?   Is that Alarm, distress or intimidation? What measures are lawful? Mandatory Medical treatment before travelling is above and beyond what is lawful. Is it also alarm or distress or harassment contrary to the Public Order Act 1986? Is it intimidation contrary to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 ?   

What measures are lawful and not a vitiation of the governing laws?   Mandatory treatment before travelling is above and beyond what is lawful.     There are many individuals who would scream at the limits of propriety and appropriateness being tested today in the media. It is sort of like Herod bringing his adultery under Jesus' nose and asking what will Jesus say or do and would it be offensive if I suggest I  stick my fist in this elephant's...... mouth at a Fight Club?  MENGELE IS A MODERN HEROD, CHALLENGING THE LEVELS OF APPROPRIATENESS WITH A PRESUMPTUOUS CLAIM TO SOCIAL AUTHORITY, AN ARROGANCE ABOUT HIS NATURAL INTELLIGENCE AND A RESENTMENT OF FORMAL TRAINING AND PREPARATION.  He insidiously threatens the authorities that include the Monarch.  I only watch on TV what I can watch with my children and my Grand children. Mengele watches "....anything goes." He is dead. But, the misfeasance, his temperament and propensity cries out.  Some say Hitler was a Zionist, fighting to systemise the world in a global defence of Israel so that Israel is everywhere and we can quickly find those who threaten. The Jews were tired of the Balfour delay concerning Israel. Who is the rat?  Who is the Hawk?  1 million people were processed as new citizens  and sent to Israel during WW2. I would say there is no evidence of this but he gave Jesse Owens an audience, ensured he was well treated with all other black athletes and then Hitler reported his concerns for Southern Black Americans. The BLACK people in the North along with whites and all others had their Dole.  After WW2, Volkswagen is everywhere.    The Ashkenazi and the Hassidic are Jewish sects founded in Germany and they cannot have killed themselves during the war but with wolf teeth and ferocity, they said America will not kill Jews either who appeal for the lives of Black Southern folk (see Mississippi Burning)  so we have to take everything with Herbie the Love bug; but we needed to know what side you are really on;  if you were just associating with Judaism  for social authority and you don't know when you might compulsively Molech spit in the milk again. Don't you have black children?  I am white but I have quite a few and they do good work since they don't have any time to skive off as they might be able to if they were white. But, sometimes I dont know if they should have the social authority or the opportunity yet since they are not white and I am still a little unusual and mostly troglodyte as a white West Indian.  I am not as good as the Mediterraneans; the Cypriots, Greeks, Corsicans, French and Israelis also.    It was a quick work and then it stopped with all the enemies captured or killed in the Nazi Schematic so that we would celebrate that human life matters and we can all enjoy a Volkswagen and own it without Swastika Sasquatch threatening ownership and Israel. Swastika is a town in Canada with a cave where Sasquatch survived in the winters for 100's of years and he may have assimilated to our food and dress, but they resent ownership and written agreements.     Maybe we see Mengele with a Court Jester today or with  Red Skelton. So, we are supposed to laugh and feel something cute is going on with these litigious breaches of UK law; criminal breaches also.     I also know that TB seems to be much more contagious on a commuter train than Aids, Sars and Covid 911. Yet, Covid 912 seems to be used to challenge and abuse the legal limits of our liberties and freedoms in some kind of "smash and grab" for more and more authority. It could end up back firing as it smacks of Gestapo-ism and, still, the economy remains unresolved. But, my nose is not running and neither is yours. In travelling to another country, could they ask for mandatory urine samples or blood samples or donations of blood? The answer is no. They could not. There is a UN protocol being offended here whether or not any candidate in some election had tested positive for Covid 911. One candidate had Covid allegedly but maybe the other had AIDS. It seems AIDs is much more dangerous apparently. But, aids is old and may not carry as much ostracism as the notion of Covid 911. Aids seems to hinder mental faculties and it makes you resent property ownership like a monkey would. It drives you to obsess about authority and it leads you to deny suggestions or proposals like Macbeth. It makes you murderous. Maybe Macbeth is the president now some where in the world. Macbeth is dead; F#+_+@+ing dead as a Covetous loser, murderous power addict !!!!! Maybe Herod Macbeth Mengele are playing a slithering power game with this 911 thing. Wouldn't it be an offense of some kind and where does it all begin? What is the motive? A suggested vaccine is enough; isn't it; if nothing else with mandatory masks as ordered.   If you have the vaccine, you have the vaccine. How do the JW's feel about this when they insist on refusing blood transfusions and the Court has upheld their right to refuse? So, then a mandatory test would be illegal based on current jurisprudence. Essentially, a mandatory vaccine is also problematic based on current jurisprudence. Do you hear something?  A vaccine is a medicine and is therefore a medical treatment.  

 See T, Re [1992] EWCA Civ 18 (30 July 1992); 

3. The right to choose is an absolute right to choose whether to consent to medical treatment, to refuse it or to choose one rather than another of the treatments being offered.    This right of choice is not limited to decisions which others might regard as sensible. It exists notwithstanding that the reasons for making the choice are rational, irrational, unknown or even non-existent (Sidaway v. Board of Governors of the Bethlem Royal Hospital and Maudsley Hospital [1985] AC 871, 904F-905A).

4. But just because adults have the right to choose, it does not follow that they have in fact exercised that right. Determining whether or not they have done so is a quite different and sometimes difficult matter. And if it is clear that they have exercised their right of choice, problems can still arise in determining what precisely they have chosen. This appeal illustrates both these problem.

A vitiation of the right to choose offends the European Court of Justice also and the laws of the US as well. 

See  Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health where the Supreme Court upheld the absolute right to choose or refuse.

 Re (T) is applicable in every Commonwealth country or territory such as Canada(Which is a direct UK territory under the BNA 1867).    

 Requesting tests or vaccines whilst travelling is a violation of UK, US and Canadian jurisprudence. Clearly, a UK citizen traveling to Canada or the Republic of Ireland or Jersey is governed by the same right to ChOOsE.   

If you say there is a disease, that is one thing but if  you harass people to comply to ordinances involving that alleged disease, how do we ensure that we are not causing alarm and distress contrary to the Criminal Law?  This never happened during Sars or Aids except for public education to stop the spread. No civil liberties or criminal laws in corollary were violated.  If you do Delta or Omicron, what would that be? Can it stand satisfy some quantitative analysis? Does the Omciron approximate Herpes, Aids, TB or TB or TB?   Is that Alarm, distress or intimidation? What measures are lawful? Mandatory Medical treatment before travelling is above and beyond what is lawful. Is it also alarm or distress or harassment contrary to the Public Order Act 1986? Is it intimidation contrary to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 ?

 

  

In Europe, 2011/24/EU

As a principle Directive 2011/24/EU extends patients’ choice options to healthcare
providers in another Member State irrespective of whether or not they are contracted
by the statutory health system in that Member State. This raises two particular and
related questions:
First, to what extent does this put pressure on member states to extend choice
options and also allow reimbursement for non-contracted providers domestically?
Indeed, several Member States signalled that in the context of the transposition of the
cross-border care Directive private non-contracted providers were claiming “equal
treatment” with foreign providers whose services would be reimbursed under the   provider remains a financially feasible option for the patient. In a written to a question
from Dutch MEP Ria Oomen-Ruyten in September 2013 (E-010662/13) Health
Commissioner Borg made clear that this lower reimbursement could not automatically
apply to cross-border health services: “the application of reimbursement tariffs or
amounts lower than those used for care received from contracted providers in the
Netherlands would amount to a disincentive for patients to use their rights to cross-
border healthcare. It would therefore constitute an obstacle to the exercise of free
movement, and would need to be justified with reference to overriding reasons of
general interest. It would also need to be demonstrated that this obstacle was both
proportionate and necessary with regard to the desired objective.” The Dutch
government proposed to abolish the insurers’ obligation to reimburse non-contracted
care, at least for secondary care, which would reduce free choice of provider in the
Netherlands. In an advice to the First Chamber the highest administrative court has
found this proposal consistent with European law, i.e. the Directive 2011/24. However,
the amendment was not adopted in Parliament.
Another issue is whether the absence of choice options domestically because the
specific care or expertise is not available in the country (e.g. rare diseases) could
justify to getting care and/or second opinion in another member state. Also the
applicability of conditions that actually limit choice need to be questioned as to their
conformity with EU rules, such as referrals by a domestic provider or the requirement
that first all domestic treatment options have to be exhausted.
The Country Expert reports show that in the area of enforcement the Directive has
produced little specific impact. Countries all had complaint and compensation schemes
in place, and individuals coming from outside the country are not given special routes
to complaint or compensation. In line with the Directive, individuals seeking to use
their cross-border rights are simply treated as ‘insiders’ for the purposes of
enforcement.
National Contact Points are charged with provid
Directive even without being contracted by the cross-border patients’ health insurer.
In Estonia an amendment to the legislation was pushed in 2013 by private providers
that would allow patients to obtain specialist day care and inpatient care without
waiting time from any provider while receiving full reimbursement from the statutory
health insurance fund at a later date. Even if from a legal perspective this could not be
sustained, the political argument was that in this way no public health insurance
money would be exported, as otherwise patients would get the treatment in Latvia or
Finland.
Secondly, to what extent are member states allowed to limit reimbursement for cross-
border care to rates that are applicable to non-contracted providers? Indeed, some
countries traditionally apply differential reimbursement for different types of providers.
For instance, in Austria a patient who seeks treatment with a non-contracted provider,
will obtain a lower reimbursement of 80% of the fee that would have been paid
directly to a contracted physician performing the same service. Also in the Netherlands
patients with an in-kind policy, which guarantees them free-of-charge health services
from providers who have been contracted by their health insurer, can only obtain
reimbursement at a lower level if they seek treatment from a non-contracted provider
(Article 13 of the Dutch Health Insurance Act). Based on the so-called “hindrance
criterium” this level should be “substantial” so that it treatment from a non-contracted.

,   

In England and Wales, it is an also offence to cause harassment, alarm or distress under the Public Order Act 1986. This carries a £1,000 fine or a penalty notice of £80. If the offence is committed with intent to cause harassment, alarm or distress, the offender can be given 6 months' imprisonment or a fine.  Intimidation is also an offence under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act, 1994. 

Who wrote the policies involving this Omicron or COVID 911? What measures or approaches would have been lawful under UK law and legislation. 

View outstanding changesstatus warnings

According to the    

Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994

       

51Intimidation, etc., of witnesses, jurors and others.)F1(1)

A person commits an offence if—

(a)he does an act which intimidates, and is intended to intimidate, another person (“the victim”),

(b)he does the act knowing or believing that the victim is assisting in the investigation of an offence or is a witness or potential witness or a juror or potential juror in proceedings for an offence, and

(c)he does it intending thereby to cause the investigation or the course of justice to be obstructed, perverted or interfered with.

(2)A person commits an offence if—

(a)he does an act which harms, and is intended to harm, another person or, intending to cause another person to fear harm, he threatens to do an act which would harm that other person,

(b)he does or threatens to do the act knowing or believing that the person harmed or threatened to be harmed (“the victim”), or some other person, has assisted in an investigation into an offence or has given evidence or particular evidence in proceedings for an offence, or has acted as a juror or concurred in a particular verdict in proceedings for an offence, and

(c)he does or threatens to do it because of that knowledge or belief.

(3)For the purposes of subsections (1) and (2) it is immaterial that the act is or would be done, or that the threat is made—

(a)otherwise than in the presence of the victim, or

(b)to a person other than the victim.]

(4)The harm that may be done or threatened may be financial as well as physical (whether to the person or a person’s property) and similarly as respects an intimidatory act which consists of threats.

(5)The intention required by subsection (1)(c) and the motive required by subsection (2)(c) above need not be the only or the predominating intention or motive with which the act is done or, in the case of subsection (2), threatened.

(6)A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—

(a)on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or a fine or both;

(b)on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both.

(7)If, in proceedings against a person for an offence under subsection (1) above, it is proved that he did an act falling within paragraph (a) with the knowledge or belief required by paragraph (b), he shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have done the act with the intention required by paragraph (c) of that subsection.

(8)If, in proceedings against a person for an offence under subsection (2) above, it is proved that [F2within the relevant period—

(a)he did an act which harmed, and was intended to harm, another person, or

(b)intending to cause another person fear of harm, he threatened to do an act which would harm that other person,

and that he did the act, or (as the case may be) threatened to do the act,] with the knowledge or belief required by paragraph (b), he shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have done the act [F3or (as the case may be) threatened to do the act] with the motive required by________

FfFfFfFFfFFFfFFF

 

Byparagraph (c) of that subsection.

A person commits an offence if—(a)(a) he does an aich intimidates, and is intended to intimidate, another per(a)he does an act which intimidates, and

(b