The Coronavirus Bill 2020: A FEW BEAUTIES

UK Blogger Kevin Boyle looks at some worryingly draconian excerpts from the Coronavirus Bill:

Kevin Boyle 12 April 2020

The following article is not the result of any kind

of forensic examination of the full Coronavirus Bill 2020, a document that signals the end of all that was good and welcome in societies (everywhere). Those who understand what is going on have better things to do with their time than trudge through this muck. It is, rather, a few short observations relating to pages chosen partly at random from the document. Who knows what further delights there are to uncover within a template for tyranny? 

Readers will have to access the full document online and go to referenced pages to examine further meaning and context relating to these extracts.

From page 269 (enforcement):
41 (1) Compliance with a direction issued under this Part of this Schedule may be enforced by— (a) a constable; (b) any other person, or description of person, designated in writing for the purpose of this paragraph by the Executive Office. (2) In exercising the power of enforcement conferred by sub-paragraph (1), a person may— (a) enter any premises; (b) if necessary, use reasonable force. 

This means the government can appoint anyone they like to come round your house, force entry and haul you away. “description of a person” means any gang the named person decides to take along with him/her.

Next, on same page:
Offences 42 (1) A person commits an offence if the person fails without reasonable excuse to comply with a prohibition, requirement or restriction imposed on the person by a direction issued under this Part of this Schedule.  (2) A person guilty of an offence under this paragraph is liable—  (a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding £100,000;  (b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine. 

This amounts to a power to confiscate your home if you do not obey. (the taking of all property back under state control is one of the central elements in the UN’s “Agenda 2030” document)

Page 217 (POWERS RELATING TO POTENTIALLY INFECTIOUS PERSONS IN ENGLAND): Powers to direct or remove persons to a place suitable for screening and assessment 6 (1) This paragraph applies if, during a transmission control period, a public health officer has reasonable grounds to suspect that a person in England is potentially infectious.   (2) The public health officer may, subject to sub-paragraph  (3)— (a) direct the person to go immediately to a place specified in the direction which is suitable for screening and assessment,  (b) remove the person to a place suitable for screening and assessment, or  (c) request a constable to remove the person to a place suitable for screening and assessment (and the constable may then do so). 

Can you recognise the horrendous potential for totalitarian abuse and crimes against persons that the state has granted to itself by these lines?

Pg 221: (2) A public health officer may at any time during the transmission control period impose such requirements and restrictions on the person as the officer considers necessary and proportionate—  (a) in the interests of the person,  b) for the protection of other people, or  (c) for the maintenance of public health. ( 3) Requirements under this paragraph may include requirements—  (a) to provide information to the public health officer or any specified person;  (b) to provide details by which the person may be contacted during a specified period; (c) to go for the purposes of further screening and assessment to a specified place suitable for those purposes and do anything that may be required under paragraph 10(1);  (d) to remain at a specified place (which may be a place suitable for screening and assessment) for a specified period;  (e) to remain at a specified place in isolation from others for a specified period. 

The slithering use of the word “MAY” translates as “we can do whatever we like. There IS NO LAW.”

page 90 (Applications for compulsory admission to hospital for assessment or treatment)
3 (1) An application by an approved mental health professional under section 2 or 3 made during a period for which this paragraph has effect may be founded on a recommendation by a single registered medical practitioner (a “single recommendation”), if the professional considers that compliance with the requirement under that section for the recommendations of two practitioners is impractical or would involve undesirable delay
and … Pg 91 (Period of remand to hospital)  5 Sections 35(7) (period of remand to hospital for report on mental condition) and 36(6) (period of remand to hospital for treatment) have effect as if the words “or for more than 12 weeks in all” were omitted. 

This means that one person’s opinion (with no second opinion required) can get you locked up permanently in a mental health facility. Soviet KGB methods have been adopted by the TORY PARTY. Great, isn’t it?

Pg 129 (Signing of certificates of cause of death):  23 (1) This paragraph applies if—  (a) a person dies as a result of any natural illness,  (b) the person was treated by a registered medical practitioner (“A”) within 28 days prior to the date of the person’s death,  (c) the time when (apart from this paragraph) A would be required to sign the certificate of cause of death under Article 25(2) falls within any period for which this paragraph has effect,  (d) at that time, A is unable to sign the certificate or it is impracticable for A to do so, and  (e) another registered medical practitioner (“B”) can state to the best of B’s knowledge and belief the cause of death. (2) B may sign the certificate of cause of death under Article 25(2). (3) B is subject to the other duties applicable to a person who has signed such a certificate. (4) A is not subject to any duties in relation to such a certificate. 24 (1) This paragraph applies if—  (a) a person dies as a result of any natural illness, (b) the person was not treated by a registered medical practitioner within 28 days prior to the date of the person’s death, and  (c) a registered medical practitioner (“C”) can state to the best of C’s knowledge and belief the cause of death. (2) C may sign the certificate of cause of death under Article 25(2). (3) C is subject to the other duties applicable to a person who has signed such a certificate. 25 Where B or C proposes to sign a certificate under Article 25(2) in reliance on paragraph 23 or 24, Form 12 has effect as if— (a) the two lines beginning with “Date on which was last seen alive and treated by me” were omitted,

Notice how responsibility for reporting accurately on a cause of death has slipped from ‘person A’ (a doctor who attended the patient prior to that patient’s death) to persons “B” and even “C”. This is a mechanism that allows doctors to shrug their shoulders and evade taking responsibility for statements about the deaths of patients they have treated and for the manipulation of statistical attributions appointed to those deaths. These pages are a liar’s charter.

CBP-8860.pdf:
It is clear from this government document (search using above link) that no second opinion (or even first opinion [given by person “A” above]) is required when attributing cause during this COVID-19 crisis. No autopsy required to establish cause of death. No. Nothing. 
Just about all natural rights have been taken from us and will only be restored after we consent, via vaccination and tracking. Then we will again be living under what our rulers will tell us is FREEDOM.They are liars.We will be slaves. Real slaves. Trapped. Helpless. We will (if you believe the documents and occult messages released by our “masters of discourse”, the Luciferian elite) be sitting around waiting to be culled. 

Why do people not START to take these people (if people in any normal sense of the word they be) at their own word?

 Because we really, really should.

Kevin Boyle

Teacher (physics/maths), would-be Christian, pro-community, anti-hierarchy.