We can help someone in three paragraphs with our Law Library research and analysis. We can help you too; You can donate. Our regular fee is $6300.00. Pay a donation/fee of $2800.00 to our Charitable Law Centre. You can donate less. We will still help. Working hard.......down in Gray's Inn London and taking a moment in early 2022 to unravel the illegal coup of COVID 19.

    

We can help someone in three paragraphs with our Law Library research and analysis.  We can help you too; You can donate.  Our regular fee is $6300.00.  Pay a donation/fee of $2800.00 to our Charitable Law Centre.  You can donate less. We will still help. 

Working hard.......down in Gray's Inn London and taking a moment in early 2022 to unravel the illegal coup of COVID 19. 

 We read lots of cases and broke it down to a breach of many laws no matter what concern there may be at any time with a flu or any other potential communicable disease.   Most importantly, there was no proof of any disease; not even a common cold.  Most importantly, the procedures involved were invasive where a needle  is classified as a medical treatment and required consent. People  are now suing.  The public order issue arose when the covid discussion demanded vaccines that were essentially a physical assault and an act of violence if the legal right to consent was vitiated. 

You can sue.  It is rumored  there is a class action law suit.   

See Re B (adult: refusal of medical treatment) [2002] 2 All ER 449.

•  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 problems.

A vitiation of the right to choose offends the European Court of Justice also and the laws of the US and Canada 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). It Is Not An Independent CoUNtry. LeGAllY, It Is ThE SamE As NOrThErN IrELand.    

 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. 

The public disorder and the incitement of fear evidenced  in the policies was unwarranted. In fact, it was a criminal offence such as criminal Intentional harassment, alarm or distress;

The SDGCK FIRM.

 See (S 91, CJA 1967, S 5, S 4A AND S 4(1)(a) POA).

Income support is a custom in all normal functioning economies as paid to all citizens.  It's a custom.  If income support is accepted as a  necessary aspect of any economy anywhere in the world post 85% Total job automation, then a denial of income support would be imposition of  the cruel and unusual circumstances and conditions of life that would satisfy the definition of genocide. The denial of money is the denial of food, water, shelter and human safety. We have designed systems of economy that can take back the money as fast as people spend it and if they spend more, the have less and give more back to the government but this is not genocide and the those with bad consumption habits will not endure with us for very long while we will make money off of their unruly spending and  irresponsible spending ways.   They are just hamsters that spin on the global capitalist economic wheel to produce us some money on what they spend; sales tax money  or credit interest.  But, if I am the Chinese leader I must have a Chinese Library with mostly Chinese books or if I am an Indian leader, I must have and maintain an  Indian library with mostly Indian books to be credible even if I am not really Indian and if I do not want to openly identify myself  as having some other nationality and loyalty while the leader or monarch of those people.  In fact, If I am an Indian leader, I must have and maintain an Indian population with mostly Indian people  with an income support for ALL the people that are citizens under my government to be credible even if I am not really Indian and if I do not want to openly identify myself  as having some other nationality, loyalty and a foreign  non English, Non Canadian, Non American, Non Human basic hegemony instinct if I have such a condition or symptom while the leader or monarch of those lousy English people. But, we will make money on them all and all of their wild spending as provoked by the smart phone networks. We pay in 10 cents per minute 365 days per year and take it back at 40% sales tax.  This is good; yea?  We pay 1% of all sales tax collected every day to the heraldry fund that supports the Monarch personally and all Heritage Trust buildings, museums and galleries. But, he does not need our help although we are assured  that suggestions are welcome.           

We can help someone in 3 paragraphs. SDGCK FIRM.            

///////////  

Public Order Act 1986

1986 CHAPTER 64

An Act to abolish the common law offences of riot, rout, unlawful assembly and affray and certain statutory offences relating to public order; to create new offences relating to public order; to control public processions and assemblies; to control the stirring up of racial hatred; to provide for the exclusion of certain offenders from sporting events; to create a new offence relating to the contamination of or interference with goods; to confer power to direct certain trespassers to leave land; to amend section 7 of the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act 1875, section 1 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953, Part V of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980 and the Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol etc.) Act 1985; to repeal certain obsolete or unnecessary enactments; and for connected purposes.

[7th November 1986]

Be it enacted by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—

Commencement Information

I1

Act wholly in force at 1.4.1987 by s. 41(1) and S.I. 1987/198

Part I

New Offences

1

Riot.

(1)

Where 12 or more persons who are present together use or threaten unlawful violence for a common purpose and the conduct of them (taken together) is such as would cause a person of reasonable firmness present at the scene to fear for his personal safety, each of the persons using unlawful violence for the common purpose is guilty of riot.

(2)

It is immaterial whether or not the 12 or more use or threaten unlawful violence simultaneously.

(3)

The common purpose may be inferred from conduct.

(4)

No person of reasonable firmness need actually be, or be likely to be, present at the scene.

(5)

Riot may be committed in private as well as in public places.

(6)

A person guilty of riot is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years or a fine or both.

2

Violent disorder.

(1)

Where 3 or more persons who are present together use or threaten unlawful violence and the conduct of them (taken together) is such as would cause a person of reasonable firmness present at the scene to fear for his personal safety, each of the persons using or threatening unlawful violence is guilty of violent disorder.

(2)

It is immaterial whether or not the 3 or more use or threaten unlawful violence simultaneously.

(3)

No person of reasonable firmness need actually be, or be likely to be, present at the scene.

(4)

Violent disorder may be committed in private as well as in public places.

(5)

A person guilty of violent disorder is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or a fine or both, or on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both.

3

Affray.

(1)

A person is guilty of affray if he uses or threatens unlawful violence towards another and his conduct is such as would cause a person of reasonable firmness present at the scene to fear for his personal safety.

(2)

Where 2 or more persons use or threaten the unlawful violence, it is the conduct of them taken together that must be considered for the purposes of subsection (1).

(3)

For the purposes of this section a threat cannot be made by the use of words alone.

(4)

No person of reasonable firmness need actually be, or be likely to be, present at the scene.

(5)

Affray may be committed in private as well as in public places.

(6)

F1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(7)

A person guilty of affray is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years or a fine or both, or on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both.

Textual Amendments

F1

S. 3(6) repealed (1.1.2006) by Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 (c. 15), ss. 111, 174(2), 178(8), Sch. 7 para. 26(2), Sch 17 Pt. 2; S.I. 2005/3495, art. 2(m)(u)(xxvi)

4

Fear or provocation of violence.

(1)

A person is guilty of an offence if he—

(a)

uses towards another person threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or

(b)

distributes or displays to another person any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,

with intent to cause that person to believe that immediate unlawful violence will be used against him or another by any person, or to provoke the immediate use of unlawful violence by that person or another, or whereby that person is likely to believe that such violence will be used or it is likely that such violence will be provoked.

(2)

An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation is distributed or displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the other person is also inside that or another dwelling.

(3)

F2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(4)

A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or both.

Textual Amendments

F2

S. 4(3) repealed (1.1.2006) by Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 (c. 15), ss. 111, 174(2), 178(8), Sch. 7 para. 26(3), Sch 17 Pt. 2; S.I. 2005/3495, art. 2(m)(u)(xxvi)

[F34A

Intentional harassment, alarm or distress.

(1)

A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he—

(a)

uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or

(b)

displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,

thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.

(2)

An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the person who is harassed, alarmed or distressed is also inside that or another dwelling.

(3)

It is a defence for the accused to prove—

(a)

that he was inside a dwelling and had no reason to believe that the words or behaviour used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation displayed, would be heard or seen by a person outside that or any other dwelling, or

(b)

that his conduct was reasonable.

(4)

F4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(5)

A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or both.]

Textual Amendments

F3

S. 4A inserted (3.2.1995) by 1994 c. 33, s. 154; S.I. 1995/127, art. 2, Sch. 1

F4

S. 4A(4) repealed (1.1.2006) by Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 (c. 15), ss. 111, 174(2), 178(8), Sch. 7 para. 26(4), Sch 17 Pt. 2; S.I. 2005/3495, art. 2(m)(u)(xxvi)

5

Harassment, alarm or distress.

(1)

A person is guilty of an offence if he—

(a)

uses threatening [F5or abusive] words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or

(b)

displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening [F5or abusive],

within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.

(2)

An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the other person is also inside that or another dwelling.

(3)

It is a defence for the accused to prove—

(a)

that he had no reason to believe that there was any person within hearing or sight who was likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress, or

(b)

that he was inside a dwelling and had no reason to believe that the words or behaviour used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation displayed, would be heard or seen by a person outside that or any other dwelling, or

(c)

that his conduct was reasonable.

(4)

F6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(5)

F6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(6)

A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.