Will the state come after the children of 'anti-vaxxers?'
Vaccines, UK law, and the 'Best Interests' of the child.
Too busy to read?
Listen instead: https://rumble.com/vnjnhv-episode-5-of-the-plumley-pod.html
Clinical ethics: consent for vaccination in children, BMJ, 27th September 2021
https://adc.bmj.com/content/archdischild/early/2021/09/26/archdischild-2021-322981.full.pdf
“It is very difficult to foresee a situation in which a vaccination against COVID-19 approved for use in children would not be endorsed by the court as being in a child’s best interests.”
These were the remarks of a judge in a recent case, prior to approval being given, for the so-called COVID-19 injection with regard to children. It appeared in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) in a recent article entitled: Clinical ethics: consent for vaccination in children, BMJ, 27th September 2021
This is perhaps not surprising, as UK case law has plenty of examples of the court ruling that vaccination is in a child’s “Best Interests.” However, the BMJ article also tells us:
“If parents decline immunisations after being counselled about the evidence for vaccine safety and efficacy, their decision would usually be respected. Rarely vaccination may proceed against parental wishes; for example, for a child in care, or a child at particularly high risk from a specific infection, although this would usually require a Best Interests decision by a court.”
Notice the the word ‘usually;’ parental decisions will ‘usually’ be respected. There is of course the obligatory note about vaccine “safety and efficacy”- isn’t it amazing how often that exact phrase crops up? Almost as if a memo, or perhaps even a script, has gone out.
Could choosing to not vaccinate your children be construed as 'potential significant harm?'
I recently learned, via THE HIGHWIRE, that in the US a doctor typically receives 8 years of training and in that time he/she is lucky if he/she receives half a day’s worth of education about vaccines - just long enough to learn to bleat the mantra: “safe and effective,” one presumes!
EPISODE 236: W.H.O. IS TO BLAME?
https://thehighwire.com/watch/
It isn’t only Del Bigtree’s opinion either. Towards the end of the above episode (236), Mr. Bigtree shows footage of the “Global Vaccine Safety Summit, Geneva, 2019.” The summit is a meeting of the world’s leading experts in vaccines and it is disclosed at this meeting that health professionals are having doubts about vaccines, and that this is likely due to them receiving an average of half a day’s training out of eight years of study! Apparently, it is the same half-day for nurses too!
So, medical professionals who have received as little as half a day’s training are pushing the line, in a majority of cases, that vaccines are safe and effective - and worse - their “professional opinion” is considered by courts to be that of an “expert witness.”
Judges do not have specialist training in medicine and therefore defer to the opinions of professionals in the field. This is clearly problematic, however, even if a genuine expert in vaccines gave testimony in court, how likely is it that a vaccine expert, paid to make, test and, promote vaccines is going to give evidence against their “safety and efficacy?”
Add to that, the case law that already exists; rulings in favour of vaccines being in a child’s “Best Interests,” and what judge would be prepared to overrule all those others that have gone before?
It has all already been stitched up, the rule of thumb that says vaccines are in the ‘Best Interests’ of a child, has already been established.
Now that approval has been given, wrongly, but never-the-less has been given anyway, for the so-called ‘COVID-19 Vaccines’ to be given to children, we are only one case away from there being case law for this particular injection being enshrined in law.
The only potential sticking point being that it must be shown that: “.. a child [is] at particularly high risk from a specific infection.”
My strong suspicion is that the inevitable and unnecessary deaths of children from the injection, will be mis-labelled as “COVID-19” and then you will have the creation of a “particularly high risk from a specific infection.”
Would mass deaths in children from this specific infection amount to the risk of “actual or even potential significant harm” - the threshold for taking children into care? They will likely say so and as the plandemic has unfolded, you will have seen that they never let the facts get in the way of the agenda.
What could be worse than the state using the courts to enforce vaccination of your child?
Well, the state can remove your child and take him/her into care, in addition to having them force-vaccinated, if they can demonstrate to the court that a child is as risk of ‘significant harm.’
https://learning.nspcc.org.uk/child-abuse-and-neglect/neglect#heading-top
Neglect can constitute ‘significant harm’ and has been used to successfully remove children from the care of their parents by social services and the family courts. According to the NSPCC (National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children), there are four types of neglect. The one which would apply here is medical neglect.
Medical neglect is defined as:
“Not providing appropriate health care (including dental care), refusing care or ignoring medical recommendations (Horwath 2007).
I personally feel very uncomfortable with the “ignoring medical recommendations” part. Whose medical recommendations exactly? Witless and Unbalanced’s crazy recommendations? Fauci - AKA Adolf Hitler’s, Mengele? Chilling, truly chilling.
They wouldn’t, would they?
An article in The Independent notes a rise in mothers having children taken into care during the plandemic, one campaigner described it as being:
“… indicative of the state becoming more punitive rather than supporting people.”
Whilst this does not pertain to vaccination status, indeed, at the time the article was written the jab had not been approved for children, it does document an increasingly authoritarian stance.
“The study notes that the number of children being referred to care homes has risen by 50 per cent during the lockdown, with one care company building nine additional children’s homes in response.”
Note the nine additional children’s homes being built by just one company.
Then there’s this article from 2017 in The Guardian:
“The research found a 65% rise in the number of children that are separated from their parents since 2001.”
I note the word ‘punitive’ being used once again in connection with the state. Yet another mainstream (legacy) journalist reporting that the state is punishing parents.
The key statistics from the article are as follows:
Dr Andy Bilson, emeritus professor of social work at the University of Lancashire, has been analysing the data gathered between 31 March 2001 and 2016. He found the number of children from care living with adopted parents or special guardians, has increased from 87,090 to 143,440 – a rise of 65%.
His research found adoptions have risen by 40% over the past five years, compared with the five previous years, but over the same period the number of children in care rose by 7.5% to 70,440.
He also notes:
“This is very unlikely to be due to an increase in abuse,” said Bilson. “The vast majority of this is about neglect or emotional abuse, often through witnessing domestic violence.
“Both of these can be better dealt with through family support and responses to poverty and deprivation. We are more willing to spend money on someone else looking after these children than in making sure the parents make a good job of it.”
Notice how it is not ‘abuse’ but ‘neglect or emotional abuse’ that is to blame for the increase in children being taken into care. The article shows that once again the state is prepared to spend money on strangers bringing up children, instead of properly supporting the actual parents of the children in question.
Could the state really take my child away for refusing vaccinations?
We only have to look to the United States to see that not only is this a possibility, but that it has already been done.
https://www.healthline.com/health-news/should-parents-be-punished-for-not-vaccinating-children
A mother was sent to jail in Michigan in 2016 for disobeying a judge’s order regarding her son’s vaccinations. The article is careful to note that “[the] case centered on the custody issue, not vaccination per se — the judge made no formal ruling for or against vaccination.”
However, Mary Holland, a prominent member of the legal advisory board of the World Mercury Project, which opposes mandatory vaccination, commented:
“The notion that the court would take away primary custody from the custodial parent based solely on the issue of one parent’s decision not to vaccinate in a nonemergency situation — that’s pretty unusual,”
The mother spent a week in jail and lost custody rights to her 9-year-old son for refusing - against the court’s previous judgement - to get him vaccinated.
She cited religious objections to vaccination, however, the judge in the case granted the child’s father temporary custody and ordered the vaccinations to take place anyway.
Clearly, in this case the court had a simple job as the parents were in disagreement. When that is the case, the court always rules in favour of the parent who is pro-vaccination due to ‘Best Interest’ precedents.
So, one way of keeping your child out of the firing line is to be on the same page as your husband or wife.
That said, when you look at what is happening in places like Canada and Australia, it doesn’t exactly take a vivid imagination to begin to realise what could well be heading our way.
A concerned parent who lives in Victoria, Australia recently wrote to me saying:
“… all workers including teachers are facing an October deadline for the mandate. Govt have also stated children of un vaxxed parents will not be able to attend childcare. Not sure if it [or] when this will extend to schools but the signs are not promising.”
How crazy is that? If you are not vaccinated then your children cannot attend childcare already in Australia?
What can we DO about it?
One of the best ways to FLAG yourself as a DANGEROUS ANTI-VAXXER who needs to be scrutinised by the state, would be to withdraw your child from school the moment vaccine mandates for children are announced - should that happen.
The same goes for the commencement of segregation in your school.
In North Lincolnshire, England, I know of one school that since July 2021 has been separating children whose parents consent to testing from those whose parents refuse.
Here’s a link to the original article, followed by the key points:
https://www.grimsbytelegraph.co.uk/news/local-news/school-refuses-back-down-amid-5646339
“Children who haven’t been tested will remain in a supervised area rather than lessons.
Parents also have the option for their children to learn at home rather than be tested.
Students were asked to complete a coronavirus lateral flow test before returning to classrooms today, or they would be unable to mix with their peers or attend lessons.”
The section regarding the children who haven’t been tested being required to ‘remain in a supervised area’ is reminiscent of a particularly repulsive section of C20th history, is it not?
Practical Advice:
It would be a massive red flag to a school, if you were to withdraw or de-register your son/daughter shortly after they announce segregation based on vaccination status, or the dreaded pronouncement of mandatory vaccinations. Be in no doubt that if you withdraw your child around that time the school WILL share that information with the Local Authority and Local Authorities are very much in cahoots with Social Services.
So, plan ahead and where possible withdraw your child from school before the messy stuff hits the fan. It is coming, of that I have no doubt. (Watch Canada and Australia).
Those parents who have seen this ahead of time are taking action now, because if your son/daughter leaves school in the coming weeks, it can be for ‘positive’ reasons such as; you want to give him/her 1-2-1 attention because of all the missed education during lockdown. Or you are unhappy that your child keeps being sent home when the cleaner tests positive. You want to make up for missed education and to really focus on their academic development. These are ‘valid’ reasons - or reasons the state will ‘understand’ for de-registering.
Let the slower ones bear the brunt of the state’s ‘anti-vaxxer’ wrath, and keep you and your child off the state’s radar.
If you go now, (and don’t mention the obvious when you do) they cannot label you as an ‘anti-vaxxer’ or ‘conspiracy theorist’. Stay neutral when dealing with the school and/or the Local Authority and they will soon turn their attentions elsewhere.
At the time of writing, of my parents that are newly home-schooling, over 10% are already being required to satisfy the local authority as to the suitability of their home-school provision. This isn’t unusual in and of itself. Ordinarily, a Local Authority will want to satisfy themselves that the child who has recently left school is physically and emotionally well, and that they are having appropriate education provided for them.
However, I do note the speed with which the LA have contacted these parents (a matter of weeks or less) and I can see that new ‘Elective Home Education Officers’ are being recruited. So, the state is reacting to and preparing for, a tidal-wave of withdrawals.
Those of us who do not want state interference in our son/daughter’s education are currently working together to placate the state so that a once per year EHE ‘update’ becomes the norm.
Imagine though, what it will be like when the state presumes that you are withdrawing because you’re a dangerous tin-foil hat wearing anti-vaxxer parent?!
ACTION CONQUERS FEAR,
BE BRAVE, DO SOMETHING.
Sarah Plumley
Thinker-Teacher-Truther