Various countries are allowing sackings (Ian M of TLN fame being one according to his post there) and other things to happen to unvaccinated people. Punjab in Pakistan announced they will be witholding wages from people not vaccinated, as well as blocking their SIM cards. Lots of reports from different states in the US even though making the experimental vaccine mandatory is supposed to be illegal there due to the terms of the emergency authorisation. Don’t know if our law changes (authorisation of the vaccine, but is not a ‘license’) specified that - it probably didn’t as I think new laws here are cr*p, or more precisely, nets are cast deliberately wide for political gain.The signs of reactions that harness the significant fear-power which is the fruit of a year of deceiptful propaganda are happening everywhere though 
The framing would be failure to observe health and safety guidelines, just need to get a few Pimlico Plumbers precedents established and then every EAT will follow suit. Might take a few months but the emergency regs will cover that.
EAT…? I only have the RG acronym guide 
I seem to be locked out of the Leaky now; not that I give a damn. But it means I can’t do a PM to Ian there. Anyone got an email or contact page where I can get in touch with him, please?
In other news related to The Shape of Things, this conversation between C J Hopkins and Joe Mercola, on whither the covid-scam from here, seems pretty relevant:
Also, and rather ominously: Dmitry Orlov has just posted another piece for his subscribers, which is so relevant to the current and shortly-upcoming shape of things that I’m tempted to break contract and copy it here in full; but I’m still having a think about that. It will probably be leaked soon by someone.
Briefly, though, its about the seriously-dire situation around computer-chip supply, and the current covid-scam-precipitated chaos in this globally very centralised and thus extremely vulnerable industry. The point being that by now the evil koyaanisqatsi Technosphere (about which Dmitry has a recent book: ‘Shrinking The Technosphere’) has succeeded in luring human society into a position where virtually anything built and supplied more recently than about fifteen years ago is now critically dependent on actually-onboard chip technology. So much so that it can’t function unless all its onboard chips are both working, and constantly replaceable any time they fail.
This means that pretty much the whole of modern society, particularly in the over-rich, over-populated countries, is likely to grind to a chaotic halt if things get any more disastrous in the global chip-supply chain; as they look very likely to do, until emergency sticking plasters are bodged into place.
This threatens not just your computers and your well-dressed-phones, but your car, your fridge, your TV (hooray!), your washing-machine, and so on and on; and on; even the bleedin’ TV zappers…
More crucially, it threatens all the electronic and wifi control systems that infest literally everything now: food-supply, clean water, sewage, electricity, both on and off grid, all transportation, all communications, very much including the near-Earth satellite herd, nuclear power-plant controls, and on and on; and on…
Dmitry’s brief points up the crucial dependency of chip supply not only on highly centralised, highly expensive-to-create production facilities, but also on the highly arcane, ultra-pure minerals and rare natural deposits, much of which are controlled by - ta-da! - China… And much of which is now past it’s all time global peak production, and likely to start getting harder, and much costlier, to source soon - if not already.
Another urgent good reason to start pronto-pronto with the five-year process of getting reasonably competent at growing your own food, any damned how you can organise it; and also: using composting loos to enrich your garden soil, learning to end your crucial reliance on any wheeled vehicle more complex than a - non-electric - pedal bicycle, learning the blissful liberation of leading the voluntarily-frugal life (which JMGreer insists is more realistically described as voluntary poverty), and so on; and on…
As Dmitry ended another recent mailout: “This is not a drill…”
We’re all preppers now, if we’ve got any slightest sliver of savvy at all. And, over the next decade or two it really is shaping up to become a life-or-death issue for all and sundry. Not figuratively, but literally. In both local mutual-aid communities and for famiies and individuals, it really is now ‘sauve qui peut!’ No-one is going to do it for us. It’s off your arses, stiffen your spines, and get bloody going time for all we soon-to-be-ex middle-class bourgeois Pampered Twenty Percenters. 
Apropos: Whilst they’re still available, it would be a good idea to work through some of the Justin Rhodes/Jim Kovaleski videos on YT, to get a good idea of what you can do if you have a patch of soil that you can use to grow food, but don’t yet feel fully on top of the prospect. Put ‘Justin Rhodes / Jim Kovaleski’ in the search box to get right in at once. Jim does something that I’ve done too in the past. He borrows the use of other people’s gardens, to guerrilla-grow organic veggies for local farmers’ markets. And of course, he pays rent in kind to the land-holder: share-cropping. Being a dogsbody to a local Jim Kovaleski in your part of the world would be a great way to apprentice yourself to food-growing competence. Or if there’s no Jim near you, ask your veteran-gardener grand-dad to take you and your garden under supervision; or someone else’s gardener-grandad/ma, if you lack one of your own…
This is not a drill. But there’s still just about time to get going.
Apols: Employment Appeals Tribunal
Part of my job role is IT procurement and the price hikes and availability issues are terrible and have been for a year already, chipageddon I’ve heard it called. Unlikely to improve until 2022. Whether that means alternate supply I really don’t know. There are a very small number of manufacturers… go check the three letters embossed on the nearest zip fastener for a clear analogy.
Thanks. EAT - it did sound familiar!
I saw a few things about this when the idea of making vaccines compulsory was first floated, some legal-ish stuff posted below (your thoughts would be appreciated 
) It became talked about as soon as the so-called ‘vaccines’ became reality. But the subject of mandatory vaccinations itself pre-dates covid; they have compulsory vaccination for kids in some states in the US - compulsory as far as access to schools is concerned.
Can people on temporary or short term contracts can access EAT?
The Health and Safety guidelines probably can’t be set in stone yet - who decides these, is it an overarching H+S body?
Cheers
ED
26/2/21 Legal: No jab, no entry? Refusing entry to your venue
On the subject of grounds for refusing entry to (or service in) a pub, the following basic principles of law and good practice in this area are worth setting out.
A public house is not a public place; it’s a private place. That means that when a customer enters a pub, he or she is effectively given nothing more than a temporary permission to be there. That permission can be brought to an end at any …
However, that decision must not be founded on prejudice or discrimination on grounds of disability, race (including colour, nationality, ethnic or national origin), sex, sexual orientation, gender assignment, marriage or civil partnership status, pregnancy, religion/philosophical belief or age (subject to statutory minimum age requirements).
…Bar staff, to whom authority to sell alcohol is given, are automatically given the right to refuse service, not only where they must do so by law but also where the customer would be unacceptable to the licensee (as long as that is not for discriminatory reasons of the type mentioned above).
There is no obligation to give a reason for exclusion or refusal of entry, but if any doubt exists it is often better to give one (again as long as it is not a discriminatory reason).
Holders of licences under the Licensing Act 2003 have a responsibility to ensure the safety of those using their premises, but the term ‘safety’ is to be distinguished from the term ‘health’, which is addressed in other legislation.
Lessons learned
So in our view, flowing from the above principles, refusal of entry or service to someone who (a) is exempt from wearing a face mask or (b) has not received a vaccination by reason of their disability, pregnancy or religious/philosophical reasons, is likely to constitute unlawful discrimination. So too could be refusal of entry to someone who has not yet received a vaccination because their younger age grouping has meant they are not yet eligible to receive a jab.
That of course begs the question how, in the above instances, evidence of exemption or proof of any of the above reasons for not receiving a jab, can be lawfully demanded from the customer without infringing privacy laws.
It may yet be that by pub reopening time, government guidance will provide helpful information (including from an overall health and safety perspective) in some or all of the above respects.
26/2/21 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL | Philosophical belief discrimination
…What does the law say about philosophical beliefs?
Religion or belief is a protected characteristic under the Equality Act. This means that employees are protected from direct or indirect discrimination, harassment and victimisation due to their religion or belief.
In the Employment Code of Practice, it says the following:
‘A belief which is not a religious belief may be a philosophical belief. Examples of philosophical beliefs include Humanism and Atheism.
A belief need not include faith or worship of a God or Gods but must affect how a person lives their life or perceives the world.
For a philosophical belief to be protected under the Act:
it must be genuinely held;
it must be belief, not an opinion or viewpoint based on the present state of information available;
it must be a belief as to a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour;
it must attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance;
it must be worthy of respect in a democratic society, not incompatible with human dignity and not conflict with the fundamental rights of others’.
More chapter and verse here, Religion or belief discrimination | Equality and Human Rights Commission.
15/12/20 Can businesses force employees to vaccinate?
In short, no. In theory, if there is a thorough medical examinations clause in a contract of employment, it could be relied upon. However, this would still be fraught with risk, and freely given consent is required for any medical intervention.
If employers were to try to force their employees to be vaccinated, not only could it give rise to human rights concerns, but there could also be criminal implications. Forcing anyone to receive a vaccine injection under duress, under UK law, could constitute an unlawful injury. A vaccination requires an individual’s informed and voluntary consent.
It may also be that someone’s anti-vaccination position could amount to a protected philosophical belief under the Equality Act 2010. If a fervent anti-vaxxer could establish that their belief was genuinely held and worthy of respect, then they may find success at a tribunal.
Religious discrimination arguments could also be made. There are several religious issues at stake when it comes to vaccinations, but the main one is the fact that many vaccines use pig gelatine, which could cause problems for several religious groups, as well as vegans – all of whom are protected under the Equality Act.
Can employers indirectly compel employees to vaccinate?
Businesses could decide to take indirect measures to pressurise vaccination of their employees, such as refusing staff entry to certain parts of the workplace or certain roles, if they cannot demonstrate that they have been vaccinated. Similarly, employers may be tempted to issue disciplinary action if an employee repeatedly refuses to be vaccinated. Any such measures should be considered very carefully before being implemented.
If an employee’s refusal to be vaccinated is down to a disability/protected religious/philosophical belief, and results in disciplinary action from their employer, they may be able to issue a direct or indirect discrimination claim, and claim constructive unfair dismissal if they resign in protest. A better course of action for organisations would be to help employees to make informed decisions regarding their vaccination by sharing impartial, factual information.
What if you work with vulnerable persons?
Under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, employers may have a duty to ensure a safe working environment by enabling vaccination of their employees in circumstances where they will have close contact with the clinically vulnerable. For example, it could be argued that requiring a care home employee to be vaccinated, and disciplining them if they refuse, is reasonable because of the high-risk nature of the work, ultimately justifying dismissal or disciplinary action.
However, it’s not quite that simple, and any employer mandating a vaccine would need to balance the proportionality of the interference with any article 8 rights, against the amount the risk is reduced by vaccination. Essentially, does the vaccine reduce transmission or does it simply suppress symptoms in a carrier? Are there any other less invasive steps that could be taken to reduce risk? It is this information that would inform an employment tribunal as to the reasonableness and proportionality of mandated vaccines in a high-risk workplace.
If the effect of the vaccine is to also suppress transmission over and above social distancing measures, it could then be possible at least in theory to justify disciplining an employee where they refuse, if their refusal is unreasonable, or relocating them to lower-risk roles, again provided this is proportionate. It is likely that such steps will be proportionate in very extreme circumstances where no other reasonable steps to protect vulnerable persons are available.
David Sheppard is an employment lawyer at Capital Law