Encourged Discrimination 21st Century Stocks MUST BE STOPED

#wakeup
😈💩👎

the equality act of 2010

Equality Act 2010, Section 119(4)An award of damages may include compensation for injured feelings (whether or not it includes compensation on any other basis). £9000 😬It is a criminal offence to ask why you aren't wearing your mask 

Civil Disobedience
I subscriber sent me this video guess he knew what there reaction was going to be as he started filming prior to entry.... however this is become acceptable behaviour thisnos clear discrimination and if you allow it this low level it will grow into other areas of life where we could all be effected public shaming.... you may as well bring back the stocks and shame people in the streets

https://ediovision.blogspot.com/2020/07/notice-of-exemption-health-protection.html

1. | have a reasonable excuse not to wear a face covering

All UK regulations and government guidance imposing restrictions in response to Coronavirus have

provided a “reasonable excuse” exemption. Although ‘severe distress’ is given as one example of an

acute immediate reaction, that is not necessary. Other examples explicitly include:

to avoid harm or injury, or the risk of harm or injury

Harm or injury, or risk of it, may be very less obvious to an observer. There is particular risk for

people already suffering from, for example, anxiety, generalised anxiety disorder, paranoia and

depression among others mental impairments. The risk is also increased to those with physical

impairments, such as asthma and many other respiratory conditions, many of which will not

ordinarily be apparent to others.

2. The government advice is not to challenge people to wear a face covering

This is for GOOD REASON. If you do so, you and your employees may be PERSONALLY LIABLE for

AN OFFENCE liable on summary conviction to pay a fine of up to £5,000 - section 112 (Aiding

contraventions) of the Equality Act 2010

AN ACT OF DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION and be ordered to pay to any individual who suffers injury

to feelings compensation between £900 and £9,000 - section 119 (Remedies) of the Equality Act 2010

3. You cannot challenge me about my decision not to wear a face covering

You are not permitted to ask for a medical certificate.

The only people who are entitled to ask about whether or why someone has a reasonable excuse are

enforcement officers i.e.

police officers

police community support officers

persons designated by local authorities or by the Secretary of State for the purpose of

enforcement

If you are not such an enforcement officer, you will be likely to commit disability discrimination and

harassment and be ordered to pay compensation.

1

The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings in a Relevant Place) (England) Regulations 2020

Under section 29 of the Equality Act 2010, a service provider must not discriminate against, harass or victimise

a person because of, or for a reason associated with, a disability.

Your PERSONAL LIABILITY on summary conviction to pay a fine if requiring me to wear a face covering

Under section 112 (Aiding contraventions) of the Equality Act 2010, if

having been informed by me that, by reason of a disability, requiring me or another person to wear a

face covering is a basic contravention of the Equality Act 2010;

you make a false or misleading statement to the effect that requiring me or that other person to

wear a face covering does not contravene the Equality Act 2010; and

in view of all the information you have, you are considered knowingly or recklessly to have made that

statement

then you will personally be committing an offence and liable on summary conviction to pay a fine of up to

£5,000.

Your PERSONAL LIABILITY to compensate me for injury to my feelings

In addition, by section 119 (Remedies) of the Equality Act 2010 the Courts may to order you to pay damages

and compensation for injured feelings as well as for any injury or loss. In relation to compensation for injury to

feelings, judicial guidelines are that even the lowest awards will be in the range of £900 to £9,000.

https://ediovision.blogspot.com/2020/06/fully-referenced-facts-about-covid-19.html
Fully referenced facts about Covid-19, provided by experts in the field, to help our readers make a realistic risk assessment. (Regular updates below)

#WakeUp
#ItsAllFake
😈💩👎

Updated: May 2020; Share on: Twitter / Facebook
Languages: CZ, DE, EN, ES, FI, FR, GR, HBS, HE, HU, IT, JP, KO, NL, NO, PL, PT, RO, RU, SE, SI, SK, TR

“The only means to fight the plague is honesty.” (Albert Camus, 1947)

Overview
According to data from the best-studied countries and regions, the lethality of Covid19 is about 0.2%, which is in the range of a severe influenza (flu) and much lower than initially assumed.
Even in the global “hotspots”, the risk of death for the general population of school and working age is typically in the range of a daily car ride to work. The risk was initially overestimated because many people with only mild or no symptoms were not taken into account.
Up to 80% of all test-positive persons remain symptom-free. Even among 70-79 year olds, about 60% remain symptom-free. Over 95% of all persons develop mild symptoms at most.
Up to 60% of all persons may already have a certain cellular background immunity to Covid19 due to contact with previous coronaviruses (i.e. common cold viruses).
The median or average age of the deceased in most countries (including Italy) is over 80 years and only about 4% of the deceased had no serious preconditions. The age and risk profile of deaths thus essentially corresponds to normal mortality.
In many countries, up to two thirds of all extra deaths occurred in nursing homes, which do not benefit from a general lockdown. Moreover, in many cases it is not clear whether these people really died from Covid19 or from extreme stress, fear and loneliness.
Up to 50% of all additional deaths may have been caused not by Covid19, but by the effects of the lockdown, panic and fear. For example, the treatment of heart attacks and strokes decreased by up to 60% because many patients no longer dared to go to hospital.
Even in so-called “Covid19 deaths” it is often not clear whether they died from or with coronavirus (i.e. from underlying diseases) or if they were counted as “presumed cases” and not tested at all. However, official figures usually do not reflect this distinction.
Many media reports of young and healthy people dying from Covid19 turned out to be false: many of these young people either did not die from Covid19, they had already been seriously ill (e.g. from undiagnosed leukaemia), or they were in fact 109 instead of 9 years old. The claimed increase in Kawasaki disease in children also turned out to be false.
The normal overall mortality per day is about 8000 people in the US, about 2600 in Germany and about 1800 in Italy. Influenza mortality per season is up to 80,000 in the US and up to 25,000 in Germany and Italy. In several countries Covid19 deaths remained below strong flu seasons

https://ediovision.blogspot.com/2020/06/definition-of-kochs-postulates.html

Definition of Koch's postulates

Medical Author: William C. Shiel Jr., MD, FACP, FACR
Privacy & Trust Info

Koch's postulates: In 1890 the German physician and bacteriologist Robert Koch set out his celebrated criteria for judging whether a given bacteria is the cause of a given disease. Koch's criteria brought some much-needed scientific clarity to what was then a very confused field.

Koch's postulates are as follows:

The bacteria must be present in every case of the disease.
The bacteria must be isolated from the host with the disease and grown in pure culture.
The specific disease must be reproduced when a pure culture of the bacteria is inoculated into a healthy susceptible host.
The bacteria must be recoverable from the experimentally infected host.
However, Koch's postulates have their limitations and so may not always be the last word. They may not hold if:

The particular bacteria (such as the one that causes leprosy) cannot be "grown in pure culture" in the laboratory.
There is no animal model of infection with that particular bacteria.
A harmless bacteria may cause disease if:

It has acquired extra virulence factors making it pathogenic.
It gains access to deep tissues via trauma, surgery, an IV line, etc.

It infects an immunocompromised patient.
Not all people infected by a bacteria may develop disease-subclinical infection is usually more common than clinically obvious infection.

Despite such limitations, Koch's postulates are still a useful benchmark in judging whether there is a cause-and-effect relationship between a bacteria (or any other type of microorganism) and a clinical disease.

Koch's postulates (/ˈkɔːx/)[2] are four criteria designed to establish a causative relationship between a microbe and a disease. The postulates were formulated by Robert Koch and Friedrich Loeffler in 1884, based on earlier concepts described by Jakob Henle,[3] and refined and published by Koch in 1890. Koch applied the postulates to describe the etiology of cholera and tuberculosis, but they have been controversially generalized to other diseases. These postulates were generated prior to understanding of modern concepts in microbial pathogenesis that cannot be examined using Koch's postulates, including viruses (which are obligate cellular parasites) and asymptomatic carriers. They have largely been supplanted by other criteria such as the Bradford Hill criteria for infectious disease causality in modern public health.