Read on Twitter
IMPORTANT MASK INFORMATION
From Anna de Buisseret
The Government has FAILED to conduct a Risk Assessment of the risks to the individual members of the public for the harms caused to them by mask wearing- or wearing a face covering.
From Anna de Buisseret
The Government has FAILED to conduct a Risk Assessment of the risks to the individual members of the public for the harms caused to them by mask wearing- or wearing a face covering.
Without such a Risk Assessment, the individual is NOT providing “informed consent” to wear a “medical device” (which a mask is as defined under the Medical Devices Regulations 2002).
A face “covering” falls to be regulated under the Consumer Protection Regulations. The Face Coverings Regulations are therefore - prima facie - unlawful and should not be enforced.
In the view of our legal team, the Face Coverings Regulations are ultra vires the Government’s powers but that legal argument is ongoing.
None of the supermarkets are providing their customers with a Risk Assessment either - so their customers are also not able to provide their “informed consent” to wearing a face covering/mask.
This is unlawful as “informed consent” must be obtained.
This is unlawful as “informed consent” must be obtained.
Anyone being asked to wear or use a medical device - such as a mask - should be medically assessed by an Occupational Health team for their INDIVIDUAL risk posed to them by wearing a mask.
Failure to conduct a Health & Safety Risk assessment is both a civil and a potentially criminal offence.
Therefore both the Government and the supermarkets - and anyone else enforcing mask mandates in the absence of a full
Therefore both the Government and the supermarkets - and anyone else enforcing mask mandates in the absence of a full
Health & Safety Risk assessment in the workplace -, is acting unlawfully and can be held PERSONALLY liable for the damage caused to the individual.
Legal challenges are already being run against the “mask perpetrators” to challenge this unlawful and harmful mask mandate and cases are already being won, and damages for harm caused paid out.
I’m a specialist disability discrimination lawyer who also has a stream of claimants lining up to bring legal claims for damages from this mask mandate. Countless people are being harmed by wearing a mask
and others are being harmed from the discrimination they are enduring from being mask exempt.
The flood of litigation is going to be Tsunami-like!!! Be warned: perpetrators will be held to account.
Anyone enforcing or imposing this mandate should be warned that they are acting unlawfully and will be held personally liable for the harm they cause.
Anyone enforcing or imposing this mandate should be warned that they are acting unlawfully and will be held personally liable for the harm they cause.
I advise anyone harmed by this mask mandate in a work environment (which supermarkets are) to file a report of your harm to the Health & Safety team and ask them to conduct an investigation into whether the employer or supermarket or
other “mask perpetrator “ has conducted a valid H&S Risk Assessment.
The local council’s Environmental Health Officer is responsible for ensuring that commercial premises in their area are safe for the public. This includes whether
The local council’s Environmental Health Officer is responsible for ensuring that commercial premises in their area are safe for the public. This includes whether
it’s safe for the public to be forced to wear a face covering or mask whilst in a supermarket or other commercial premises. Without a full Risk Assessment, no one should be required or forced to wear a face covering or mask - it’s a breach of the Health & Safety laws
and a potentially criminal offence.
If the employer or other “mask perpetrator “ hasn’t followed the law in forcing you to wear a mask, criminal investigations can follow under Health & Safety laws.
If the employer or other “mask perpetrator “ hasn’t followed the law in forcing you to wear a mask, criminal investigations can follow under Health & Safety laws.
The Equality Act 2010 does not permit anyone to discriminate against a disabled person on the grounds of their disability.
Refusing entry to a shop or access to public services to a disabled person is prima facie disability discrimination. No evidence can
Refusing entry to a shop or access to public services to a disabled person is prima facie disability discrimination. No evidence can
be lawfully demanded. It’s a breach of both the right to privacy and the Equality Act 2010 to ask for medical evidence in this manner.
Masks worn by the public in community settings, do not prevent transmission of a virus particle as tiny as SARS-CoV-2: that’s what the scientific research evidence shows.
Masks can INCREASE the risk of transmission if not face-fitted and fit-tested for the individual wearer as leakage occurs.
Masks can INCREASE the risk of secondary bacterial and fungal infections due to incorrect putting on and taking off of the mask, incorrect storage and lack of sterilisa
