Are you forced to take vaccinations in the Marines?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Johnny_Anonie

Moderator
Joined
Mar 17, 2019
Posts
1,741
Reaction score
2,671
Negative I think mate, pretty sure of this, but granted not 100%. Only primary legislation goes through that process. The Corona Act stuff is secondary legislation and was bolted on to the Public Health Act 1984. The Public Health Act specifically states it can't be used for lock downs and the things that it has been used for. Therefore the Corona Stuff was Ultra Vires and unlawful.

Government was acting unlawfully, but no Court would hear it, so technically wasn't.

Ah, I genuinely thought the Corona Act was Primary legislation as it doesn't appear to have a parent act, received royal assent and it contains secondary legislation itself? I.e The Act delegates law-making powers to various agencies.

It did appear to pass through a lengthy parliamentary process, albeit very very quickly - https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/2731
 

GreyWing

Nobody
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Posts
5,887
Reaction score
4,666
Ah, I genuinely thought the Corona Act was Primary legislation as it doesn't appear to have a parent act, received royal assent and it contains secondary legislation itself? I.e The Act delegates law-making powers to various agencies.

It did appear to pass through a lengthy parliamentary process, albeit very very quickly - https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/2731
I will double check, it's been a while since I read it but it formed a big part of Simon's case.
 

GreyWing

Nobody
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Posts
5,887
Reaction score
4,666
This is a link to Simon's legal challenge. If you click on the "case update" tab, it will go through all the arguments.


"We are arguing that the Government misused legislation to bring in the new regulations without proper scrutiny by parliament. The Government introduced the new measures through the Public Health (Control of Infectious Disease) Act 1984 by certifying the legislation as ‘urgent’. That loophole allows Ministers to make the laws effective immediately without prior approval in parliament."

"Philip said the 1984 Public Health Act used to order the lockdown only applied to individuals and should not have been used ‘to keep everyone ‘under house arrest.’ He suggested the Government should have used the 2004 Civil Contingencies Act instead."


Got to be honest, I think it's getting above my pay grade. It appears to jump in and out of being Primary legislation, then using parts from other acts.

It's pretty much lost me
 

Johnny_Anonie

Moderator
Joined
Mar 17, 2019
Posts
1,741
Reaction score
2,671
I've had a squiz on JustisOne and it confirms that Coronavirus Act 2020 is an Act of Parliament aka Primary. It contains its own secondary legislation which refers to laws that are made by other people or bodies using authority delegated by the Act.

The link above mate, from a quick read, seems to be challenging the Public Health Act 84' as opposed to the Coronavirus Act 2020.

A quote from the link above confirms that Public Health Act 84 and Coronavirus Act 2020 are seperate.

The Judicial Review will seek to challenge the Government on three main points:

• Whether lockdown is unlawful because the Government implemented regulations under the Public Health Act 1984 instead of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 or the Coronavirus Act 202

But this doesn't change the fact that both contain secondary legislation that in my mind is incredibly dicey. I find secondary legislation to be sneaky and potentially dangerous. Secondary legislation written into Acts is not considered or debated by the elected House of Commons. This means law-making powers are delegated to Government Ministers (and lets face it this usually means they are exercised by unelected civil servants who actually write them!) This means that the powers laid out in both the Public Health Act and Coronavirus act are subjected to a less democratic process than that which applies to primary legislation (Even if the C-19 act passed through its 5 stages at the speed of 1000 gazelles!), yet they have the same legal force as their enabling Acts.

It just doesn't sit well with me that law making powers are delegated to outside of Parliament. The process for challenging secondary legislation in court is expensive and very formal, like the link above which is aiming for a JI, and this can deter people from challenging the validity of secondary legislation. C'mon and lets just move to Ireland. Last one there buys the Guinness.
 

1919

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2019
Posts
104
Reaction score
136
But this doesn't change the fact that both contain secondary legislation that in my mind is incredibly dicey. I find secondary legislation to be sneaky and potentially dangerous. Secondary legislation written into Acts is not considered or debated by the elected House of Commons. This means law-making powers are delegated to Government Ministers (and lets face it this usually means they are exercised by unelected civil servants who actually write them!) This means that the powers laid out in both the Public Health Act and Coronavirus act are subjected to a less democratic process than that which applies to primary legislation (Even if the C-19 act passed through its 5 stages at the speed of 1000 gazelles!), yet they have the same legal force as their enabling Acts.

It just doesn't sit well with me that law making powers are delegated to outside of Parliament. The process for challenging secondary legislation in court is expensive and very formal, like the link above which is aiming for a JI, and this can deter people from challenging the validity of secondary legislation. C'mon and lets just move to Ireland. Last one there buys the Guinness.

Lord Sumption on why he believes they didn't go with the Civil Contingencies act:

"Why did they not use the Civil Contingencies Act, which was already on the statute book? The most plausible answer is that the Civil Contingencies Act required a high degree of Parliamentary scrutiny which ministers wished to avoid. Emergency regulations under the Civil Contingencies Act must be laid before Parliament in draft before they are made. If the case is too urgent for that, they must be laid before Parliament within seven days or they will lapse. If necessary, Parliament must be recalled. Even if the regulations are approved, the regulations can remain in force for only 30 days unless they are renewed and reapproved. Unusually, Parliament is authorised to amend or revoke them at any time. By comparison the degree of scrutiny provided for under the Public Health Act is limited. In urgent cases, regulations under the Public Health Act have provisional validity, pending Parliamentary approval, for 28 days, and that limit is extended for any period when Parliament is not sitting. Parliament cannot amend them, and once it has approved them it cannot revoke them. They remain in force for whatever period ministers may decide...

...The problems begin with the very first days of the lockdown. In his televised press conference of 23 March, the Prime Minister described his announcement of the lockdown as an 'instruction' to the British people. He said that he was 'immediately' stopping gatherings of more than two people in public and all social events except funerals.

A number of police forces announced within minutes of the broadcast that they would be enforcing this at once. The Health Secretary, Mr. Hancock, made a statement in the House of Commons the next day in which he said: 'these measures are not advice; they are rules.' All of this was bluff. Even on the widest view of the legislation, the government had no power to give such orders without making statutory regulations. No such regulations existed until 1 p.m. on 26 March, three days after the announcement. The Prime Minister had no power to give 'instructions' to the British people, and certainly no power to do so by a mere oral announcement at a Downing Street press conference. The police had no power to enforce them. Mr Hancock’s statement in the House of Commons was not correct. Until 26 March the government’s statements were not rules, but advice, which every citizen was at liberty to ignore."


All of this is extremely dangerous in a common law system based on precedence. As the checks and balances failed to function, with certain crucial cultural conventions obliterated and the population showing itself to not believe in these things in any meaningful way, I am struggling to see a way out of rule by ministerial decree. Ever.

I must admit, I have been thinking about the oath recently. 'Bearing true allegiance'. What does that mean when the executive, in my view, is abusing not only the fundamentals of our parliamentary system, but our whole way of life? In forcing the Crown to assent to what I believe are essentially hostile, criminal, acts, they're coming mightily close to being the very enemies that you swear to defend against.

I'm not advocating a coup, but they really are playing with fire and I don't think people realise the seriousness of what's happened yet.
 

Chelonian

Moderator
Joined
Aug 10, 2010
Posts
11,825
Reaction score
14,893
Doubt is a useful legal tool. If there is doubt it can be argued. I'm certain that the government blagged it. But doing so was an effective way to ensure compliance.

A more libertarian government might have permitted greater individual discretion on the part of the public. I can only speculate but there is a possibility that more lives would then have been lost to COVID-19, not fewer.

To be honest I've always regarded much of the law and its enforcement as being 'made up as we go along' so I'm quite relaxed about the parliamentary shenanigans.

There has been an increase in the number of people citing Magna Carta as a defence against COVID-19 enforcement action. None of them ask the obvious question: "Has this defence ever worked before?"

Lord Sumption is a legend. I'd enjoy having a few beers with him and then debating something really silly. :)
 

1919

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2019
Posts
104
Reaction score
136
Screenshot_20210329-170903_Chrome.jpg

@1919 is that you??

In all seriousness this has been a hoofing thread to read... made me realise how solid I am because a lot of it has been far too intelligent for me to contribute to, certainly opened my eyes a little bit!
Battle-of-Algiers-1.png
Have to be allier than that. See me'self a bit more Foreign Legion trying to off de Gaulle over Algeria.
 
Last edited:

smashlegs

Valuable Contributor
Joined
Sep 8, 2019
Posts
182
Reaction score
99
Nobody seems to be discussing how compromised our immune systems will be at Lympstone. Whilst seemingly the fittest lads in the country, the effects of RT are actually massively negative on the body during that period of time - sleep deprived, not eating the same as we do as civilians, constantly smashing intense phys and long endurance stuff, being in and out of the field being broken down either by extreme cold or heat etc.

I don't know how much can be posted publicly beyond what the press already found out so I'll be cautious here but I've been told stories by trained mates working at CTC of how severely COVID has affected some Recruits on the ward because they essentially have a battered immune system.

What I don’t understand is how somebody who has had covid can go from been recovered and fine, then at a later date is doing multiple tests with negative outcomes, gets covid again yet people around him also testing regularly do not. Only thing I can think of is it must have the ability to lay dormant and if your immune system weakens again it can overwhelm the body. Just strange how the other people did not catch it.

If that’s the case vaccination in my opinion should definitely be mandatory in the service as you do not want to be on Op and suddenly go down with it because it’s been dormant in your system.
 

GreyWing

Nobody
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Posts
5,887
Reaction score
4,666
Only thing I can think of is it must have the ability to lay dormant and if your immune system weakens again it can overwhelm the body. Just strange how the other people did not catch it.
Or the testing kits may not be accurate. The designer of the PCR testing process said not to use them for testing in the wild (i.e on people without symptoms).

African leader of Tanzania, went missing a month or so back and turned up dead:

Back in May last year -

"The president said he had instructed Tanzanian security forces to check the quality of the kits. They had randomly obtained several non-human samples, including from a pawpaw, a goat and a sheep, but had assigned them human names and ages."

"Samples from the pawpaw and the goat tested positive for COVID-19, the president said, adding this meant it was likely that some people were being tested positive when in fact they were not infected by the coronavirus.

“There is something happening. I said before we should not accept that every aid is meant to be good for this nation,” Magufuli said, adding the kits should be investigated."

 

Captain Muggs

Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2020
Posts
10
Reaction score
14
Or the testing kits may not be accurate. The designer of the PCR testing process said not to use them for testing in the wild (i.e on people without symptoms).

African leader of Tanzania, went missing a month or so back and turned up dead:

Back in May last year -

"The president said he had instructed Tanzanian security forces to check the quality of the kits. They had randomly obtained several non-human samples, including from a pawpaw, a goat and a sheep, but had assigned them human names and ages."

"Samples from the pawpaw and the goat tested positive for COVID-19, the president said, adding this meant it was likely that some people were being tested positive when in fact they were not infected by the coronavirus.

“There is something happening. I said before we should not accept that every aid is meant to be good for this nation,” Magufuli said, adding the kits should be investigated."

Kary mullis (creator of the PCR test) has stated clearly multiple times that it is not a tool to determine whether you are sick or not, especially if it is cycled above 32-35, we have been cycling it at around 40, so highly inaccurate. Lateral flow testing also has a high false positive rate.

What is concerning is that both of these testing methods are being used to govern policies globally. They effectively create casedemics which would never end unless we cease to use them for testing.
 

GreyWing

Nobody
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Posts
5,887
Reaction score
4,666
There has been an increase in the number of people citing Magna Carta as a defence against COVID-19 enforcement action. None of them ask the obvious question: "Has this defence ever worked before?"
Just learned that there are four clauses from the Magna Carta that are still on the law books and fully respected. The rest of the charter has ceased to be directly valid, most superseded, but others not renewed.

The four currently still law are:

“No free man shall be seized, imprisoned, dispossessed, outlawed, exiled or ruined in any way, nor in any way proceeded against, except by the lawful judgement of his peers and the law of the land.

“To no one will we sell, to no one will we deny or delay right or justice.”

"The city of London shall enjoy all its ancient liberties and free customs, both by land and by water. We also will and grant that all other cities, boroughs, towns, and ports shall enjoy all their liberties and free customs."

"First, that we have granted to God, and by this charter have confirmed for evermore, that the English Church shall be free, and shall have its rights undiminished, and its liberties unimpaired.”
 

Chelonian

Moderator
Joined
Aug 10, 2010
Posts
11,825
Reaction score
14,893
"First, that we have granted to God, and by this charter have confirmed for evermore, that the English Church shall be free, and shall have its rights undiminished, and its liberties unimpaired.”
By and large the Church of England willingly respected the COVID-19 restrictions on faith gatherings. It will be interesting to see how many faith gatherings which were penalised are successful in challenging the legality of the restrictions.
 

GreyWing

Nobody
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Posts
5,887
Reaction score
4,666
By and large the Church of England willingly respected the COVID-19 restrictions on faith gatherings. It will be interesting to see how many faith gatherings which were penalised are successful in challenging the legality of the restrictions.
Not sure what it means by English Church to be honest. The Magna Carta was written 1215 if I'm not mistaken. Was the Church of England a Henry VIII creation in the 16th century?
 

Ninja_Stoker

Admin
Joined
Jul 10, 2007
Posts
35,495
Reaction score
17,952
By and large the Church of England willingly respected the COVID-19 restrictions on faith gatherings. It will be interesting to see how many faith gatherings which were penalised are successful in challenging the legality of the restrictions.
There's always exceptions, I guess. My wife attends our local church.. Which only closed after half a dozen caught the lurgy, two whom (elderly) subsequently died.
 

Chelonian

Moderator
Joined
Aug 10, 2010
Posts
11,825
Reaction score
14,893
Not sure what it means by English Church to be honest.
My guess is that in this context it means the Established Church which currently is the Church of England. Subsequent legislation associated with equality is probably bolted on to the original Magna Carta to ensure continuing relevance.
 

GreyWing

Nobody
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Posts
5,887
Reaction score
4,666
Interesting update from the US Marines Corp. They (Some Politicians, not the Corp) are looking to make in mandatory apparently.


As far as I know, it's illegal for them to do it. Precedent in the US Supreme Court has already been established. Although in 2003 at one unit they did jail someone for not taking a vaccine, they put the charge down as disobeying an order from an Officer rather than the offence of "not taking a vaccine".
 

Ninja_Stoker

Admin
Joined
Jul 10, 2007
Posts
35,495
Reaction score
17,952
Interesting update from the US Marines Corp. They (Some Politicians, not the Corp) are looking to make in mandatory apparently.


As far as I know, it's illegal for them to do it. Precedent in the US Supreme Court has already been established. Although in 2003 at one unit they did jail someone for not taking a vaccine, they put the charge down as disobeying an order from an Officer rather than the offence of "not taking a vaccine".
It is quite interesting on the lower take-up by 'fighting age' individuals and of course ethnic minority groups.

Over here the reported adverse side effects with the AZ vaccine, albeit an estimated one in 2.5million, will doubtless add credence to the claims of anti-vax lobbyists, particularly in younger groups with a significantly lower mortality rate from the virus.

The Armed forces angle, I guess, is that individuals making themselves medically non-deployable without good reason are effectively not much use with regards operational capability.

The legal argument is whether the argument is sufficiently valid to terminate their contract of employment. A moral maze.

The USMC cannot afford a 40% cut in personnel, but one thing's for sure, it emphasises the future potential for biological warfare and the decimating effect it could have, without a shot being fired.

It underlines the fact it was important for the UK armed forces to continue to function throughout the pandemic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top