Failed FOI

I have served 2 requests for Freedom of Information on my local council recently.

One, just before Christmas, was about the ubiquitous yellow striped posters that suddenly appeared about the city, trying to keep us in fear at a time of joy and relaxation (and for some, a key religious festival). Norwich City Council were unable – or unwilling – to provide answers and the evidence that they are legally obliged to. They tried to fob me onto central government, but I pointed out that as their name and logo (along with Norfolk County Council) are clearly on the posters, and there are signs round lamp posts saying #Protect Norwich, that this was clearly their doing. Thus, they were showing their agreement with central government’s narrative and are culpable for any disinformation and its effects. On what evidence are they stating ‘cases are rising’ here in our city? On what evidence are they telling us to socially distance and wear masks? I knew already that central government in this and other countries were unable to provide that information, and also cannot technically show SARS-COV-2 as existing. Could they prove that these measures weren’t actually doing harm? On 11th Jan, I advised the council following their second attempt at meeting their obligation – which just gave the £5100 cost, from central public purse – that if this was ignored (thus far, it has been), it was a breach and that follow up would occur.

Do other cities have these blessed waspy signs? I understand that all England has them – are they your way? Do you have something like it in other countries? Has anyone else made a FOI (or whatever your country calls it) request on similar lines?

On 9th Feb, I asked about 5G and cameras in this city – when installed, where are they, how much did they cost, on whose authority, what does it do, specification, and what consent did they seek and obtain?

I’ll be letting you know the responses, and what I do with them.

CEASE AND DESIST ORDER RE DISINFORMATION AND DISCRIMINATION

I’m making public this, served a few minutes ago on 4th Feb 2021 to my local train company. You might want to adapt it for yours or other public places. I am likely to send more of these to offending places. (Note: I’ve boycotted trains for over a year due to their virus stance and general behaviour).

---

It has already been brought to your attention – proof remains – that Greater Anglia Railway’s stance on masks is illegal, unjust and without medical foundation. This is also true of the government guidance it is based on. Freedom of information to multiple departments and governments shows that there is no evidence that masks assist in the prevention of spread of the disease; there is evidence that it actually assists the spread and causes damage.

There are suppressed reports of face burn; of collapses – some didn’t get up again. The alleged rise in cases is linked to prolonged mask wearing.

It restricts oxygen, essential to life.

Measurement under a mask of a healthy person in just 4 minutes returned an off the scale reading of carbon dioxide. This I have heard via direct testimony.

I have also heard the testimony of those known to me who are seriously adversely affected by face coverings, including the sight of others wearing them. Thus it is not hearsay that they cause panic and collapse and breathing issues and tears.

Freedom of information in 5 countries has shown that the virus has not been isolated, and thus cannot be diagnosed and recognised.

This has huge implications for the label ‘pandemic’ and all emergency powers based on it, which break every inalienable human right such as all 30 in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948, and our own UK version of this in 1998.

Figures – and thus policy – are also based on false and meaningless testing, as many doctors worldwide attest.

Hence, those who enforce such measures in the name of covid are on serious ground.

Many such ‘mandates’ are actually guidelines or rules, and not legitimate law. Even if they are, if they clash with underlying laws and medical evidence (and in some cases, common sense) then they cannot be enforced. To do so puts the enforcers in the line of major litigation.

Lawyers internationally are joining with doctors about masks, and are going after companies who a) do not respect exemptions for their customers and staff; b) perpetuate what many see as a fraudulent narrative that knowingly causes harm

Specifically, this cease and desist order refers to the automated announcements heard when passing your station regarding masks, more than once. It is assumed that this announcement is regularly repeated throughout the day and the network. It is also pointed out that non-passengers can hear it, not even on station ground. Thus it is a public service announcement to the general public and Greater Anglia is proffering medical advice, on which it has no authority and grounds to do.

The specific concern is the wording of the announcement about face coverings. It says that exemptions are for children under 11 and for those with a severe mental condition.

It is the latter clause that issue is taken with (although it also harms young people above 11 especially): the phrase ‘severe mental condition.’

One: it is not politically correct to speak of mental illness and learning disabilities in this way… it is almost a throwback to now offensive and pejorative terms of many decades ago. Although terminology changes, this is clearly well out of date and has a disrespectful aspect.

Two: You have invented the word ‘severe’ – it is not in government guidelines. Thus you are sharpening a definition yourselves, which you must therefore take responsibility for. It is also a subjective term, and your staff (nor British Transport Police) do not have any right to make assessments about what is ‘severe.’ It is not for you to diagnose, which is irrelevant to many of the exemptions; and nor can a ride on a train or being on the premises constitute consent to this by your staff or any other, including doctors.

It is also pointed out that as much of your stations are outdoors, that mask wearing is unnecessary and causes extra distress and damage. It is not reasonable or legal to expect those passing through the carpark or forecourt to wear a facecovering.

Three: in government rules, it is not only ‘mental condition’ or even ‘medical condition’. It is simply those to whom wearing would cause distress – as well as those needing to be lipread. Trauma and the wide neurodiverse spectrum are not mental or medical conditions. They do not need diagnosing or registering. It is not something to ‘cure’. It is also not something obvious. As pointed out before, if you do not recognise this spectrum, in either sense, then your staff should not be involving themselves.

It is also again brought to your attention that trauma sufferers and those on the neurodiverse spectrum are easily distressed, and your questioning them or otherwise being threatening – let alone touching them, and in these times – is likely to cause attack, in both senses. Hence you are liable for escalation and need to desist from this and from taking further action against those who you have wronged.

Anyone can have breathing issue or immunity issues; these do not need to be ‘severe’ or again proven or diagnosed.
Your staff or their subsidaries cannot take this role.

It is also pointed out by several top lawyers that a mask is a medical device. You, as a nonmedical organisation who have undertaken no individual assessments (nor should you), cannot stipulate the blanket wearing of a medical device. It is akin to saying that we must all have hearing aids, or pacemakers, or wear glasses. Clearly, these are not appropriate for all, and must only be worn with informed consent – neither of which is being given. In many cases they cause damage.

This damage, along with that of the vaccine, is being suppressed. To take away freedom of speech, access to facts and opinions, and to deliberately misinform the public is a very serious offence.

It is also hereby notified that to spread misinformation and enforce masks or other acts of submission is constructive fraud.

Discrimination is also a crime and suits will follow.

You are therefore asked to cease and desist making any facecovering ‘mandatory’, from signage and annoucements that states otherwise, and to not adopt any future conditions such as vaccination or temperature tests or PCR.

Greater Anglia will be liable for all this, for it has a choice about following government ‘rules’ and in adding to them, is entirely culpable.

In closure: to assist an unjust governance is the most serious offence under Magna Carta article 61, and so is taking action to suppress those who exercise their rights and lawful duty.

This notice is being made public, and so might your response to it be, especially if it tries to cause harm to me and mine in any way.

Thanks to the work of Ramola D and Peggy Hall for their work which I drew on in part for this

As for the reply: GA trains tried to sidestep, downplay… and I replied that they have now stated in writing that they intend to continue discrimination and disinformation and the other crimes herein; and that they and British Transport Police will try to elicit unlawful charges on the victims to do so.

Does this not beg for legal action?

Are you distressing and discriminating against disabled and diverse people?

How Covid rules are oppressing the marginalised

If your country or state expects you to wear a mask in particular situations – perhaps even whenever you’re outside – then there should be exceptions.

I’m talking about England, but the principles remain wherever you are.

I believe in recommendation, not regulation.

I’ve discussed the dubious legality and medical veracity of masks in a previous post.

I’ve been checking with shops, transport and services about face coverings (note it’s not masks) and their knowledge of exemptions. In England, the rules are broad and vague. It even says that coverings – any kind will do – are to be worn where social distancing isn’t possible – which actually precludes most places.

The government website says that services must be understanding to those that can’t wear face coverings, and one of the non exhaustive reasons is simply those who would suffer distress. That isn’t defined. We’re (rightly) not required to prove or discuss it.

Some staff know the rules, some don’t – and yet they’ve threatened to debar entry without a mask. One train company was even stupid enough to say that if they suspect that people are making an excuse via claiming exemption, they’ll take action.

So will I.

Have they not heard of hidden disabilities? Is every physical condition you have something that everyone knows about you? Are we obliged to get these diagnosed by doctors? (NO).

And neither security nor police have the right to pry or to assess us.

I am very loathe to call autism a disability – I see it as a trait. But there are people in this wide spectrum who more ignorant people don’t recognise as such. Some might struggle with social distancing. It isn’t only those who may obviously appear autistic who get distressed by masks.

There are wider variations of neurodiversity – such as giftedness, high sensitivity, and empaths.

If you don’t recognise these in either sense, then you should not be someone who is front of house, making any decision about entry, policy, or enforcement.

There are people with what we (often unfairly) term mental illness.

There are those with anxiety, and who get panic attacks. I wonder if it affects those with epilepsy.

There are those we call learning disabled, although I’ve seen posters against such a term which can seem so derogatory.

There are those with hearing impairment who need to lip read.

We might also have been traumatised…attacked or abused…

I’m touching just on a few of the types of people who are very distressed by wearing a mask.

This is also true – and perhaps more so – of temperature taking, testing – especially drive throughs, where people are trapped and can’t choose. Having people swab us or inject us is a huge deal.

Some people really hate being touched, or having people stand near, especially aggressively.

Threatening or debarring these people is going to exacerbate.

So before you misjudge – remember: only police can enforce law, and if you call them or refuse entry or try to arrest or contain, you’re causing offence in both senses. If you pick on any of the above persons, you’ll additionally have a disability/diversity law suit and I encourage anyone who suffers to make it known and take it further. There’s already been litigation in the US.

In England, there are exemption cards you can download and wear from photosymbols.com, which are also available via local and national societies, eg for disability or autism.

Face covering is a bungled piece of legislature, but people who already have extra challenges and live in challenging times shouldn’t have that worsened.

I know of people with special conditions who are in tears and in overwhelm because of how hard going to a shop or cafe is, who’ve been bullied in a library, and who don’t dare ride on trains.

Now they can’t even have the comfort of attending an act of worship.

All because of inappropriate rules and ignorant aggressive staff trying to force them.

It’s not keeping anyone safe. If you harm someone in the name of stopping the spread of illness, it’s like shooting them to stop them getting run over. Especially if shooting is part of a larger agenda…

Yes, shops, services and transport also have pressure on them.

So the clear message to them, and to governments and their agents is:

If you want custom, not complaints; good publicity, and your business and administration to survive Covid

Stop oppressing your people.

If you’ve had trouble for not wearing a mask, contact tracing, or anything else, please write a comment

AN OPEN LETTER ABOUT MASKS AND OTHER COVID-RELATED RULES

I wish to challenge the upcoming rules about masks, and also taking our contact details in pubs.

One – I think this shows how arbitrary law creation can be, and that it can contravene what we know to be right and fair; but even within law:

No statutes can contravene Common Law and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights – a global, inalienable set of articles.

Lockdown has broken almost every one, and letting us out legislation has the potential for more.

But even so called emergencies can’t override these rights.

There is also the query that coronavirus a) was and b) still is an emergency, because figures have been greatly exaggerated and other narratives pushed aside. Many whistleblowers in medicine and science have queried the true infection rates, the death rates, the very nature of germ theory vs terrain – and thus how data has been used to justify government actions.

The act being used in Britain, The Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 (note the year), states that emergency contingency must be proportional. If the disease isn’t as deadly or widespread in a dangerous way, then the laws are disproportional and thus not valid. They also are valid for only a short period – we have overreached ours.

Many doctors also state that masks don’t help protect. Studies are vague (one being cited in April was retracted, but it relied on only 5 people). I have read many times the common sense approach that masks hold in our old breath, making any germs go round and round our respiratory system, thus making us ill. But masks aren’t designed or effective for stopping what we breathe out seeping beyond the mask.

Masks make hearing aids out fall out; glasses steam up; they exacerbate breathing issues (this is allowed for in legislation, thus they know that masks aren’t good for us); they promote fear, obfuscate conversation and emotional connection; they can look sinister.

There is a strange shift from WHO and other medical officials from saying: masks are not necessary for the healthy general public, especially in outdoor or brief indoor encounters; to sudden regulations requiring them – as lockdowns eased.

This seems a highly political move, to keep fear and the economy moving side by side.

Is this law or guidance? The latter can’t be enforced, the former only by police.

Hence chairman of the Federation of Police of England and Wales, John Apter, who quickly made a statement to newspapers at the news, is wrong to say that mask wearing should be a condition of entry to shops. He’s really saying: the police don’t want the job, so we’ll push it onto front of house staff – who are privately contracted employees, some of whom aren’t even employed to do security.

He also made a statement that masks are necessary – but he’s not a medical specialist, and neither is that his role to make or stipulate policy.

I had hoped that the first bit of his statement meant he and the police were an ally, and I’d love for them to refuse to enforce such an arbitrary, difficult rule.

Recently reopened cafes in England are being asked to take customers’ contact details at the door. Mostly, you’re not warned of this and there’s not a notice to tell you the conditions, (eg how long are they held, by whom, and exactly what for.)

This is contact tracing through the back door: who deems that there has been an outbreak of COVID among customers and requires them to be told to self isolate? Is this going to be checked or enforced? I can see that this is also a compliance test as well as a possible excuse for house arrest and collection of genetic material and treatment – not in the patient’s interest.

I pointed out that this is a data protection breach, the terms of which are unclear. We don’t usually have to do this to enter a library, so why now? Why are security staff – not library employees – allowed to take this information?

I can see how this is a compliance exercise and several are worried about further stages.

This may not seem too unreasonable – but what follows?

We shouldn’t need a doctor’s note – they’re hard to get to, and it assumes a condition that the mainstream health system understands whilst ensuring you’re in their system.

For a security guard or police officer to ask for our medical history is an intrusion.

I note the inconsistency: passengers must wear a mask on the socially distanced bus – but the driver doesn’t. You can sit round a pub table with your friends for an evening, maskless, but not swiftly move through the supermarket where you’re meant to be 2m apart… or was that 1 now, Boris… we’re really not sure. We’ve shopped all along – why the sudden panic?

Masks make us ill. If you think different, by all means…. if you think it reassures your customers…

but don’t require it, or make it a division and something for strangers to argue over, or employers to threaten staff with.

John Miltimore, editor of the Foundation for Economic Education, said

“Good ideas don’t need force.”

And bad ones… perhaps that is why force is being used. For nothing about this – spending money we may not have, thanks to lockdown, on masks that I frequency see discarded, that make us ill…

Have you noted how much coronavirus rhetoric is about others before you?

Wearing something, washing something, giving something should not be a government condition of opening or entering.

I reiterate that right to work (23), to associate (20), freedom of movement (13), to participate in cultural life (27), to a good standard of living – food, clothes, supplies (25), leisure (24) access to services (21) – are all enshrined the UDHR and thus denying these is not legal, especially as this is effectively penalising for one’s opinion – also forbidden under UDHR (18/19).

And there’s no exceptions (30), no discrimination (2).

‘The Will of the People is the basis for authority in government’ – UDHR 21.3

These laws are not and therefore, being deleterious to the same, are not lawful, nor moral.

Hence these regulations need to be dropped as recommendations only and give the people the choice of whether to go elsewhere, and never have their livelihood dependent on it.

And to the papers who say that mask-refusers are less intelligent:

I think the tenure and vocabulary of this article (somewhat abridged) proves this invalid.