📚 *OUR ENGLISH COMMON LAW REQUIREMENTS*
*FOR *BONA FIDE VACCINES IS*

📚 *A BONA FIDE VACCINE*
REQUIRES INFORMED CONSENT,

A) VIA A SIGNED PRESCRIPTION, FROM A MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL,,

B) VIA THE ENCLOSED INFORMATION PACK, OF WHICH ALSO CREATES A CONTRACT,,


📚 *A BONA FIDE VACCINE*
IS REQUIRED BY LAW TO
UNDERGO MANY YEARS OF TESTING FOR ITS SAFETY,,

📚 *A BONA FIDE VACCINE*,
IS REQUIRED TO PROVIDE OVER
5- YEARS OF RECORDINGS,
TO PROVE, IT'S LONG TERM EFFECTS,

📚 *A BONA FIDE VACCINE*
IS REQUIRED BY LAW TO;
PROVIDE THE EVIDENCE OF ITS SAFETY, AND IT'S LONG TERM SIDE EFFECTS,,

*A BONA FIDE VACCINE*
IS REQUIRED TO PROVIDE PROOF, OF IT'S LONG TERM PROTECTION,

It’s going to seem like we are being forced into a small sub culture of outcasts. Actually the energy of this is 50/50 and eventually we become the dominant aspect of society until such time as we are all like us. That’s going to take time. So whilst it’s going to look strange and pretty scary for us, actually it’s not in the long term. We are pioneers of a totally new society. We are the ones that thrive. The old system simply cannot and will not sustain. When we get together our levels of unity and connectedness and true love for one another will be felt by all of us. We will together create true euphoria and bliss for one another, the natural state of the human being. Hang in there, stand strong and cultivate temperance and stamina for what is to come. It is important we create what we all came here to create....and we will and it will be so worth it. We are doing this not just for ourselves but for our great great grandchildren and all our descendants. We will go down in history as the forefathers (and mothers) of the New World (as opposed to the New World Order) 💛💛💛

This is a good video to share with people who said the magnet didn’t stick to them or their friend.

Carmen, the creator of this video is in the comments if you want to speak with her!

FOLLOW US FOR MORE INFO ON COVID VAX INJURIES 💉💉💉💉

This is the recording that goes with the vaccine Center visit number 2..... I have started to share it from after personal details given.

Why is this substance in the Moderna COVID vaccine?

SM-102: heptadecan-9-yl 8-((2-hydroxyethyl) (6-oxo-6-(undecyloxy) hexyl) amino) octanoate

The safety data sheet lights up with adverse effects/warnings regarding SM-102. For example: “Suspected of causing cancer. Suspected of damaging fertility or the unborn child. Causes damage to the central nervous system, the kidneys, the liver and the respiratory system through prolonged or repeated exposure. Very toxic to aquatic life with long lasting effects.”

https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2021/05/19/shocker-why-is-this-substance-in-the-moderna-covid-vaccine/

Sources:

[1] https://emergency.cdc.gov/coca/ppt/2020/dec-30-coca-call.pdf
[1b] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RcgAXSKQyw
[1b1] https://youtu.be/9RcgAXSKQyw?t=638
[1b2] https://youtu.be/9RcgAXSKQyw?t=840
[2] https://www.caymanchem.com/msdss/33474m.pd

All health care professionals need to know, or be reminded of this.
They are obligated to report all adverse reactions to medicinal products which carry a Black Triangle. This is not open to opinion or interpretation.
https://www.medicineslearningportal.org/2015/08/reporting-to-mhra.html?m=1

An employer who requires employees to wear a face covering in an office environment should know that this is not a legal requirement, except in relation to a designated business within statutory rules. Therefore, employers should consider the guidance on face coverings for the particular type of work involved as part of a risk assessment.

In England, employees in the following sectors must wear a face covering:
• shops
• supermarkets
• bars
• pubs
• restaurants
• cafes
• banks
• estate agents
• post offices
• public areas of hotels and hostels

Any employers who do not fall into one of the above categories of business should therefore be aware that asking their employees to wear a face covering is a request. They should also be aware that face coverings are NOT in fact a replacement for other ways of managing risk. The most effective methods of preventing the transmission of a virus remain social distancing, regular hand washing and cleaning.

Given the nature of the request to wear a face covering in a business not within any of the above categories, and the fact that it is likely to be unrelated to an employee’s duties, an employer may wish to put the obligation on a contractual footing. Employers may, therefore, decide to try and introduce a contractual requirement. However, a contract of employment is a legal agreement between the employer and the employee. Its terms cannot lawfully be changed by the employer without agreement from the employee (either individually or through a recognised trade union), and in any event an employer should not breach equality laws when changing contract terms. See further here https://worksmart.org.uk/work-rights/pay-and-contracts/contract-changes/can-my-employer-change-my-contract-employment.

So if a change of contract has not happened, and the request to wear a face covering is just that, (ie the business concerned is not one within the list of mandatory businesses above), an employee may refuse the request to wear a face covering.

In such a case, the employer should consider the reasonableness of imposing sanctions if employees do not wear a face covering, against its health and safety obligations. In this regard an employee may wish to furnish their employer with several peer reviewed medical reports about the dangers of face coverings and mask wearing, which can easily be found online.

The employer should also consider whether face coverings are a proportionate way to address risk, taking into account the employer's health and safety risk assessment, and perhaps the evidence that face coverings in fact represent a real threat to health. Specific objections by an employee should be considered on a case by case basis.

Before enforcing a face covering policy within a business not caught by the legislation for the same, it may be beneficial and indeed good practice for employers to consult employees and their representatives to see what opinions are held. Employers should also consider taking legal advice before introducing such a policy to ensure they have taken all of the necessary steps.

Employers will generally be vicariously liable for the negligence of their employees, which means that an employer may be liable if someone’s health is damaged due to their employee’s negligent disregard of health and safety rules. In practice, however, it would be very difficult for anyone to show that they contracted Covid-19 because of an employee’s failure to wear a face covering.

In all cases, that is where it is not mandatory to wear a face covering at work, and even where it is, employers should be careful about introducing and enforcing blanket policies requiring employees to wear face coverings, as they could run the risk of unlawfully discriminating against people who have legitimate reasons for not wearing them. For example, it could be indirect disability discrimination to discipline an employee who suffers from COPD for not wearing a face covering if they are unable to do so because it would prevent them breathing properly.

DR REINER FUELLMICH ON COVID SCAM

https://www.bitchute.com/video/eF98McD0bXDH/

Prof Montagnier was awarded a Nobel prize for his work on HIV. Here he has a dark view of the future for those who have had the depop shots. https://www.brighteon.com/d3335274-24b1-4a68-942c-92fb8d692255

Prof Montagnier was awarded a Nobel prize for his work on HIV. Here he has a dark view of the future for those who have had the depop shots. https://www.brighteon.com/d3335274-24b1-4a68-942c-92fb8d692255

COPIED AND PASTED

If you want to travel (FLY) and it does not matter if you are V@cc3d or not you need to read this.

A lesson in Irony and Blind Justice.

Who says that God is not in control of all of this.

This will show you twice how it happens.

Pay attention an follow along carefully.

The Airline Industries teemed up with Government and the Evil Cabal and helped to promote V@cc1n3 passport with the slogan "No Jab, No Fly" (Word changed to beat censorship).

And it worked all these people did as they were told and went running out to get the little prick so they could fly and go on holidays. Yet others did research and saw that this was dangerous so they risked not being able to fly and go on holidays to save their life. These people sacrificed the chance of a holiday to be healthy.

Now comes the sting in the tail.

All the airlines are having meetings at the moment about the jab. What might you ask are they discussing?

Lets face a fact first! It has been known for so many years that anyone of any age who has a clotting risk and similar disorders can only fly under strict supervision and it is recommended they do not fly unless it is an emergency and preferably a life threatening emergency.

Why is this important it is because when you fly you are at greater risk of complications, stroke and death if you are susceptible.

We now have information that confirms that everyone getting the jab (does not matter which one) are having clotting and bleeding issues as one of the main reactions. These reactions are all similar to the ones known about that restrict you from flying.

So what are the airlines talking about?

They are discussing their liability and what to do about the v@cc3d as they should not fly as it is a health risk. These discussions have only just started and I do not know what the outcome will be.

So it looks like that everyone who took the Jab may not be able to fly.

All those unv@cc1nated might be the only ones able to fly in the end.

Now for the second sting in the tail.

It must have seen like a good idea at the time when the all the airlines (well most) got on board with this. They would have thought that the governments and the evil cabal would get what they would want and also the airlines would get a captive audience of certified travelers.

What has happened instead?

Every airline has reduced their customer base as the V@cc3d will not be able to fly. This will put financial pressure on them as there are now less people able to fly.

But there is even more to this.

For us plebs who only use flying for holidays we have nothing but for all those people who fly for their work and income and if they got V@cc3d because of the recommendation of the airline then they will have a quantifiable material loss.

A material loss crated by someone else, especially if they did something wrong like breaking human rights, breaking the Nuremberg code, is something that you can get compensation for.

So all airlines that supported this like Qantas just to name one are in for a hell of a rough time to survive.

Now all the airlines, who complied, if they want to survive they are going to have to bring court action against those who told them what to do. These people could be government or other deep state operators it does not matter they are going to have to do something to offset these court cases and recover their money to stay viable or go under.

This means they will have to name and shame all those behind the scenes that were telling them what to do. If you know enough about corporate law you will know that they do not have a choice or they themselves go down under corporate law for not defending the corporation.

This will be interesting to watch play out.

I do not have any idea how this is going to end but boy what a sub plot.

Yours Sincerely in Love and Light

Craig Roy, Australia.