A good explanation of the legal issues surrounding mandatory vaccination, and all the rest of it

Anna De Buisseret is a retired UK army officer and a senior lawyer. On tonight’s Richie Allen show she gave one of the best explanations I’ve heard yet of the legal stuff surrounding mandatory vaccinations, and all the rest of it.

The interview starts at about 1 hour 5 minutes in (it’s audio only - depending on your connection speed, let it download for a few minutes and then you’ll be able to skip to the relevant part), and it lasts for about 30 minutes…


Many thanks Rob, and I’ll listen shortly. But will just post the link to this article, sent to me by a friend who has been sitting a little on the fence on vaccination, and who has now given me an opening for a long exposition on it that I previously kept quiet about:

I’ll need to look up part 1 too…


Thanks RobG. I’ve only managed the first third (15m after your recommended start time) as I was typing. But in what I heard there are some important points regarding legal employment rights. I assume she was speaking about UK law. Though the specifics might not apply depending on which country you hail from, it’s worth checking out what your employment law actually says. A very quick check suggested that employment law was devolved in NI (where there are differences) but not in Scotland or Wales, so they should be similar to the UK.

These points stood out for me. (my numbers and emphasis):

  1. “The fundamental principle of law is that we are all equal under the rule of law, and we all have the equal protection of the law, and the right not to be discriminated against, on any basis. That includes health status. The idea that they can discriminate against a whole bunch of people because they’re unvaccinated is against international, European and domestic laws.”

However a question from the host Richie Allen revealed a caveat - that courts were producing different outcomes in different jurisdictions. And that may be because the judge has (her words) ‘bought the narrative’. Further, she added this:

"So I’m not necessarily confident actually, because the feedback from lawyers around the world is that the judiciary has been compromised. Either through the brainwashing, because the expert evidence - sorry I use the term expert, like the government does - the expert psychiatrists and psychologists who have been analysing the methods that have been deployed on the population in order to obtain their consent - their evidence is that there is military grade psychological warfare being conducted on the population. "

  1. What I would say is the Workers of England union are getting some great results, they’ve been working with a number of the care and NHS staff. I would say, as an employment lawyer, an employer cannot unilaterally impose a term of your contract that requires you to take an experimental genetic treatment. Even though some contracts might have a clause where someone has agreed to certain injections, for travel for example, that’s been agreed beforehand. An organisation does not get to unilaterally impose that. Also under Health + Safety in the Workplace legislation, if an employer feels it is necessary they must, it’s a statututory requirement, provide an individual with an individual risk assessment of health and safety and well being, and that’s under section 3 of the H+S at work regulations 1999. That includes wearing masks, injections…the risk assessment must be with an Occupational Health professional, and if they don’t have their own internal one they must employ an external one. That has to be given to anyone prior to mandating new measures as I’ve said. It has to be individual as we are all different, there is no blanket policy that is lawful. If they have an existing medical condition where this could be a threat to the right to life they have to be informed of all the risks and all the harms that could come to them from a medical treatment of procedure. And the employer doesn’t know that until there has been that risk assessment, so they can’t say that it is going to be safe, and okay.
    So the individual has to have that risk assessment with a clinical - with a physician, that physician has to go through that person’s previous medical history, and assess the harms and benefits to that individual. If the harms outweigh the benefits then they cannot proceed with those, it will be unlawful because it will cause harm to the individual.

  2. For example, the Pfizer patient information leaflet specifically says that you should have an allergy test for all of the ingredients. Well there are eleven ingredients - and we now know some that haven’t been listed. The active ingredient is called BN162b which is the synthetic nucleotide and then there are ten other ingredients.
    Now, first of all, who has had an allergy test of each of these ingredients, secondly, where would they get them from, and thirdly if you’re going to have an allergy test you need it done well before the appointment so you can get the results and consider them, and fourthly where is the allergy test for the combination of these ingredients. People have died for example from anaphylactic shock, one of the reactions listed, it’s no mild matter. And we know, of course, that people aren’t having these allergy tests, and all of these things are breaking the Health and Safety at work laws - a criminal breach, because it can result in someone’s severe harm and death.

This link explains more about Employment Law
Employment Law in the United Kingdom - what differences are there?


That is a terrific podcast, I would term it a “must watch” had the term not been over-used. I am highly impressed by Anna De Buisseret. Thanks for posting Rob.


If workers ask for an allergy test for all eleven listed ingredients - as is their right under the law, not to mention any moral code - this will be extremely difficult for employers to accommodate. Additional obstacles were mentioned by Anna de Buisseret: not all the ‘vaccine’ ingredients are disclosed, and the combinations might need to be tested as well.

There is also a problem that has hitherto been buried - the frequency of adverse reactions to the vaccines, many of which would, in the normal way of things, cause a medication not to be given.

An individual assessment - another right - if it’s required by a doctor will also present insuperable problems. To begin with, to fulfil the number of individual GP assessments is not possible, especially if that right is supposed to be automatic.
Also once the’ve finished reading out the blurb they’ve been given, most GPs aren’t in a position to answer any questions about the vaccines that an informed patient might have. The awkward question of the legal requirement for informed consent will therefore surface (it should have been a major issue before now). If a worker decides they don’t buy the risk-benefit calculation as sold to them, then they can’t give consent that is informed. If they are then coerced into taking the vaccine the coercer is breaking the law because then consent is not based on risks v benefits.


Rough and raw transcript of the rest of the podcast, omitting some chitchat (and possibly important details).
On hearing the rest I would agree with @Sanjeev’s description of ‘terrific’. Thanks again to @RobG.
I strongly recommend checking out the accuracy of any part that it is relevant to you; the way the podcast playback is set up you often have to replay a few minutes to reach a particular point of it.


Following on from the first part above, i.e.from “… because it can result in someone’s severe harm and death”

AdB: And we know, of course, that people aren’t having these allergy tests, and all of these things are breaking the Health and Safety at work laws - a criminal breach, because it can result in someone’s severe harm and death. And with no informed freely given consent you are assaulting them. Because if you are giving them medical treatment without consent freely given you are assaulting them. You are battering them! And that’s contained both in the Tort of Negligence and in our Criminal Code in the Offences Against the Person Act and the Criminal Justice Act etc.

The moment someone gets their skin pierced by injection they have been wounded under S20 of the Offences Against the Person Act. That wounding is only lawful if the person has consented to it. And they only consent to it when they have been given all the material risks. And if it was freely given, and if they had competency and capacity etc.
RA: When you put it like that it’s open and shut. So I’ve sross referenced this info and it’s right, so we’re back to judges that have been brainwashed, who should look at that and saywell yes it’s obvious this person can’t lose their job, this person can’t be compelled to have this jab but you’re back then to the government’s emergency measures and judges thinking ah well these are extraordinary times. We’ll ignore that law, and tell the employee to do their civic duty and have the jab, or get out of my courtroom or get fired.
AdB: Can I come back on that?
RA: Absolutely, 100%
AdB: To anyone listening and trying to enforce these things, on the grounds that it’s a public health emergency. No - under the ICCPR, again we have inalienable fundamental RTL and right not to be tortured and receive human and degrading treatment, which inc. med treatment w/o informed consent. It specifically says it, in that human rights instrument. And then paragraph 58 of the Siracusa principles (which was a group of people in Siracuse, Turkey who got together and said too many people got together and said too may govts are trying to derogate from rights, claiming, you know, public health emergencies, and we’re going to review all of this and determine what rights can be derogated and in what circumstances. Para 8 of the Siracusa principles specifically says there is no right to derogate from the RTL and the right not to be tortured etc, in public health emergencies, even when they are threatening the life of the nation. The point there is that you don’t get to threaten an individual’s life, RTL, or torture them, or subject them to medical procedures without their consent - as they did in the Third Reich, in the POW camp etc. You don’t get to do that even to POWs. The War Convention specifically states that means and methods of warfare are not unlimited, and of the limitations that are placed on warring nations, one of them is that you can not subject individuals to medical treatment or experimentation without their informed consent, freely given. So the idea that states or companies or the NHS or schools can threaten the RTL, or give them medical treatment without their consent, in a public health emergency - no! Paragraph 58 (of the Siracusa principles) specifically prohibits that.
(D. Non-Derogable Sights
58. No state party shall, even in time of emergency threatening the life of the nation, derogate from the Covenant’s guarantees of the right to life; freedom from torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and from medical or scientific experimentation without free consent; freedom from slavery or involuntary servitude; the right not be be imprisoned for contractual debt; the right not to be convicted or sentenced to a heavier penalty by virtue of retroactive criminal legislation; the right to recognition as a person before the law; and freedom of thought, conscience and religion.
These rights are not derogable under any conditions even for the asserted purpose of preserving the life of the nation.
And the Fair Wok Commission in Australia heard a case Kimber case. It was decided this year, I think it was decided five or six weeks ago, and one of the judges there went through that specific point about mandating vaccines on the premise that it was a public health emergency threatening the life of the nation, and quoted paragraph 58 of the Siracusa principles and applied it. So you don’t get to do this, it’s a breach of international law.
RA: This is hugely interesting. There are quite a few questions about precedent - you can probably guess what they are. You know, if a judge was courageous enough to enforce the law as you’ve laid it out, would that be a great thing in terms of precedent . We’ll come back to that. but…we’ve got a lot of…I normally get hundreds of comments during the programme, but you’ve crashed the website.
AdB. Oh no…
RA: No no it’s a good thing. It’s back online, there’s so much interest in it…
Angela has said, Richie please ask Anna this: my company is discriminating against me because I won’t take a lateral flow test. Is this legal, can they compel me?
AdB: Again, it’s a breach of the fundamental right to bodily integrity. Again, they have to give the employee an individual risk assessment, and prove that they are not going to be harmed by it. Now on the evidence, we know that these tests have got ethylene oxide on them, and there has been evidence that they have loose fibres on them that can come off and go down into the lung, and start the process of lung fibrosis, and we’ve also had evidence that there may be graphene oxide on them too. Some of that needs to be investigated by the employer. In addition to that, there are problems with it crossing the blood-brain barrier. And there is the knock-on effect that these tests have been proved to be 97% false positives (in the case of the RT PCR test). It was found by the Portugese court of appeal last year. So if someone is forcet to take a test, it’s going to be a breach of their wellbeing, because if they get a 97% false positive and then have to take time off and isolate, and be all stressed and worried by the fact that they might be ill, when in fact it’s all the fault of the test, because it’s fraudulent from the evidence, then imposing that is a breach of their wellbeing - it’s part of Health and Safety, it’s not just about health and safety, it’s wellbeing as well - so imposing tests that breach bodily integrity without informed consent of the risks, and without being freely given, which a mandate will breach - is a breach of the employment contract. And can I just add there, the duty of care owed by the employer to the employee - that duty of care is an absolute, they don’t get to have a discretionary one, it’s a must - is to first do no harm.

RA: I hope that’s of use to Angela, I’m sure it will be. Gavin is expressing frustration - quite a few are - sometimes when we read books, fictional dramas, we’ll see a judge and the judge will say “Listen I am compelled to give a certain sentence, a mandatory sentence, my hands are tied”. Richie, we have the Nuremberg Code, the Council of Europe legislation and Human Rights Law, why aren’t these cast in stone in such a way that a judge can not ignore them? Why are judges not compelled to follow them - you’ve given us the impression (or maybe I’ve got the wrong impression) that judges can interpret the laws in certain ways and aren’t necessarily bound by them, if you know what I mean.
AdB: Ah, okay, basically everyone is bound by the rule of law including judges, and the judicial obstacle includes upholding - they have an oath of allegiance to the Crown, and the Crown’s allegiance is to we the people, which includes our laws. God’s laws? customs, practices, common law and our statutes agreed upon (not the ones we have imposed without consent). So a judge is required to uphold all of these laws, and if they are standing under their oath, they will be. What I think the confusion is possibly for the public is of course when it comes to interpreting laws, there are very different rules about statutory interpretation - and you may hear a judge saying there is a strict interpretation of this statute, but in these particular circumstances that strict interpretation would be unjust or would not apply etc. And so they make an exception. And they would be entitled to do that, depending on the circumstances or the facts. And so it’s not a straightforward practice, the practice of law, unfortunately, where you can have strict binding… but any judge standing under their oath has to uphold the rule of law, that does include the Nuremberg Code - and the Nuremberg judgement from the Nuremberg trials after WWI included judgements against judges and lawyers, who were found guilty because judges and lawyers at that time - some of them had passed? the laws and some turned a blind eye. And some when given the opportunity to put laws right, didn’t - they followed the dictats of the Third Reich. So we are seeing something similar to that at the moment, we have those judges who claim they don’t know what’s going on, we’ve got those judges who are the victims of the so-called psychological warfare, they literally believe a narrative that is clearly not right on the evidence, and then there are those who are clearly conflicted. Because there are conflicted people in every profession, sadly.

RA: Lee was on the program, a restauranteur, love1ly bloke - he asks about administering jabs to those with autism or disabilities, who can’t give informed consent. That’s a difficult one, because I’m sure there is a protocol going back years for those who can’t give informed consent but might need a medical procedure. Does the covid jab - is it covered by previous statutes or laws?
AdB: Well yes, because the Nuremberg Code says that someone must give their consent, and capacity means that they are competent to understand the material risks and can weigh up the information given to them and then apply it. And capacity means as you say they they have a disturbance in the mind or the brain which means they don’t have the competence? So with adults in a clinical trial, using a human medicine which is what thisis, that’s set out in the er, human medicines for use - can’t remember the exact name clinical trials 2004 - that sets out that basically, any clinical trial must be conducted in accordance with good clinical practice. And in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration (which includes the Nuremberg Code) and that specifically says that if adults don’t have capacity then specific provisions apply that are set out in the schedules for those regulations. But in that they would be referring to the Mental Capacity Act 2005, which specifically states how someone’s capacity must be assessed for their ability to decide. And so it’s very complicated, but basically the starting point is that people are presumed to have capacity, unless it’s proved that they don’t. And so if you have a condition such as dementia or autism then on the face of it you don’t have capacity and you then have to take someone down the steps of capacity assessment (?) for their ability to give consent.
RA: We have an interesting question from Jane, who met you at the protest. She’s in HR, the company are pushing the global mandate, she has control of the United Kingdom, says Jane, is there any case law anywhere that she can use to end this mandate in Europe? Any help would be great. She’s desperate to do something, this HR person asked to push the jab on people. I’m kind of guessing you’ll give the answer you gave earlier on, but -
AdB: Off the top of my head, I think the case is called Pretty against the United Kingdom, and it was held that er, the ECHR establishes that the provision of medical treatment without consent constitutes an offence under Article 8 of the ECHR, though erm, I think the case was
Pretty against the United Kingdom, but yes, it has already been held to be a breach of fundamental - again, bodily integrity, right to privacy, this includes bodily integrity, right?
(chat and banter)
RA: Can I ask you, do you concern yourself with people using this to take the world in certain ways, like a great reset - or can you not afford to do things like that.
AdB: Oh god…absolutely, I’ve been studying these things for - years. You know, when people talk about what’s facts and what’s a theory, you have to look at what’s available, in the public domain, at the best sources. So you go to the source of the evidence. So for example when people say the WEF is just a theory, it’s not - go on to the WEF website itself, and you will see that it talks about the great reset. So that is an agenda - it’s what they’re planning to do. It’s the same as the sustainable climate change Agenda 21 and Agenda 30, which are United Nations agendas. You can go on to the UN’s own website, and put the search terms in, and you can download the1 pdfs and also read them for yourselves. That’s no theory, these are stated agendas. And if you read those agendas they are bone chilling. Because they are a dystopian future, unless you happen to be one of the few people who agree with it, because virtually every single person I have spoken to thinks these agendas are nightmarish.
RA: Is that the1 genius of it, in some way? That it’s beyond the scope of even the most intelligent people? I know some really intelligent people - well read, well educated, can hold a conversation with anybody, problem solvers. Yet when you mention this to them, they tell you to go away, were you watching Bond villain films or something like that. The awfulness may be part of its genius, as people can’t imagine that.
AdB: Well I go back to the psychological warfare that’s been conducted on people, and the evidence from these experts is that it is cult level programming. People who have succumbed have basically been indoctrinated into a cult, a covid cult, and when they hear certain sentences their brain has been programmed to respond in certain ways, and it’s hard-wired in that way now, so to try and get past that stage with evidence and statistics and facts is nigh on impossible, there have to be different ways to talk to people depending on what brainwashing they have succumbed to.
RA: Can you suggest, then…
AdB: Yes I’m told that one of the ways to do it is passion interrupt - so for example if you hear you’ve got to wear a mask for the kids, my grandma died of covid because you didn’t wear one…and you say did you know it transforms droplets into aerosols - something that they’re not being told - it causes a passion interrupt, and it questions the whole narrative that they are safe and effective and stop transmission etc, and helps people get past that hard-wired programming. Richie, I’m not an expert in this, and that’s one of the things I’m doing, I’m meeting these experts, hopefully in the course of next week, hopefully they’ve got some affidavits for me, and part of that is, how people deal with the brainwashing, and get through to the people who have succumbed. And you know that means you have to be compassionate rather than judgemental. Because these are victims, of the terror campaign.
RA: Well said, they are our friends, our family and our neighbours.
AdB: And they have succumbed - and that’s another breach of the war convention, and even in times of war you are not allowed to conduct a campaign of terror. And you know, the number of people who have committed suicide, who have stayed in their homes, foregone seeing their loved ones, because of this fear and terror, they have been put into this state. And we know because it’s fear, it interrupts our ability to think rationally and process information. So again, people who are still stuck in the fear mode, are victims.
RA: They are indeed. Nora Dodsworth, in the book, took that on - the nudge unit, they’re even admitting, some of them at some level, that masks don’t do very much, but it’s good to remind people that there’s a pandemic. That’s terribly mendacious, isn’t it?


Hi folks, I found Anna De Buisseret compelling listening , thanks for the post Rob.
I may have missed it but I didn’t hear her mention an ECHR case called VAVŘIČKA which I covered here:


This is so whacko it’s beyond belief…

Rules have eased but masks onboard are compulsory throughout, apart from at mealtimes, and passengers must still have pre-departure Covid tests and proof of full vaccination.

1 Like

I flew with some friends earlier this year. I was berated by them for a) incorrect mask wearing and b) mask being off for too long whilst drinking tea. I tried explaining that we, along with a couple of hundred other people, were stuck in a tin can breathing recycled air, but, well, you know how it went…


Something I’ve really noticed just recently in my little neck of the woods, is that people are starting to wear masks on their chin, or under their chin.

I was amazed from the start that the French really bought into the mask stuff (1789, and all that).

1 Like