With all of the laws the sting is in the tail and they always sell it as increased protection and for the greater good. They boast about the lofty goal of their laws but in the end it will cause loss of freedom, speech and autonomy of the individual, they are put in place to subjugate the population. It is always about control.
Oh Dave, I have such mixed feelings about this. On one hand I agree completely with you on Anne's law and similar in England and Wales. I share your concern that it will normalise the locking down of care homes while disregarding the needs of the majority of care home residents who don't have an involved relative. These lonely people rely on interactions with the family members of their fellow residents and the many other people who visit care homes - ministers, entertainers, health professionals, school children and so on. These people will have no access during a lockdown and the family members who do will be restricted to the room of their relative - complete with covered face as you say.
On the other hand, I'm hugely supportive of the tireless work done by Campbell & Natasha (and CHRS) and fully understand why they're fighting for something good and lasting to come out of the horrendous situation they lived through with Anne. There is no script and we're all trying to do the best we can, some of which may be misguided but I don't believe intentionally. I'm not quite sure how to deal with this dilemma which, for me, you've brought to a head and wonder if there's a way forward where we can all work together without alienating those who are actually on our side.
Hi Valerie, yes, couldn't agree more with the tireless work by the campaigners (bare in my CHRS blocked me on X many months ago..bit odd given i was the only account highlighting their members testimonies and also why have they not posted any inquiry testimony on social media?). Regardless..moving on....so after listening to how many loved ones were treated during lockdown the real 'Annes Law' to me would make sure those that REMOVED the human rights of residents are held accountable and NO MORE LOCKDOWNS and mask mandates under ANY circumstances. THAT is the ONLY way to avoid a repeat of the March 2020 insanity. All the facts as they stand support this conclusion. There is no way to sugarcoat the reality we all now face...hence the article. I do not believe MSPs/public health would even honour Annes Law...that too will be 'thrown out' if they so choose. Naive to think otherwise. There is no genuine respect shown towards families and society in general (eg-look at the blanket ignorance of Scots COVID inquiry testimonies vs MPs/MSPs). EXISTING human rights law should be used and fought for if necessary. Families should make that clear and be united in holding people to account especially as we now know most people in care homes (Mar-Jun 2020 and likely beyond) died ''WITH COVID'' (often without any test) not OF COVID. It was the extreme measures breaking the preverbial camel's back of our already most frail. Many of these harms will be LEGALISED in 'Annes Law' this is just a fact and a big win for gov/public health. So the bigger picture has to be seen (given the 8 months of first hand testimony). From my perspective the main groups at the inquiry (CHRS/COVID bereaved) have a political bias towards protecting the SNP which is just astonishing given what they and all the other parties have overseen 2020-2022. And then on top we have a weak media that do not report on any of this because Scots would soon realise what really went on, they too are protecting the lies from 2020 and ordinary guys like me and a few others that discuss it and 'call it out' WE get the hassle. Tragic!
Tragic indeed. I don't disagree with anything you've said, the question is, how can like minded people be united in holding decision makers to account when we're all approaching the problem from different perspectives and with different priorities. Perhaps it's not possible and we just have to keep chipping away, doing what we believe to be best. I'm nowhere near as bold as you but your work has definitely informed mine where I'm trying to keep the dialogue open (mainly re masks) with decision makers. It's difficult work because at heart I'm a people pleaser and I just hate being constantly in opposition to colleagues I've worked with for years. Swimming against the tide is exhausting as we all know and we need all the encouragement we can get. Keep up the good work, there's more than one way to get the job done and I'm confident we're having an impact.
Thanks Valerie. I don't think any of the points i rasied here can be refuted..it will be the reality for people. I merely outline what i'd like to see happen but ultimately the direction of travel is upto the families (it's not really 'my fight') and what sort of future do they really want and feel comfortable with handing over to others? I would say all medical interventions require full informed consent, that should be the focus and cornerstone of any new pandemic/outbreak 'laws' around testing, vaccines and mask wearing. In a free society people should be free to choose without punishment. If we are NOT a free society with two tier rules for compliant and non compliant then at least we should all stop playing pretend? eg-If my family members were in a care home i would never wear a mask or take a test or inject myself with the latest pharma potion in order just to visit them. That's insane. But where were are heading unfortunately. The ''new normal''. History lessons required.
''"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -Benjamin Franklin
I agree totally. In England, lobby groups are pushing for a very similar law: "Gloria's Law". Not only will these laws fail to protect those in hospitals and care homes from the imposition of visiting restrictions (read the small print in both) but they will hardwire restrictive visiting practices for perpetuity.
Here is our brief on why we are opposed to Gloria's Law ( and by extension, Anne's Law)
Gloria’s Law’ and why it must be opposed
The Rationale behind Gloria’s Law
In light of the evident harms inflicted on care home residents and patients as a result of the visiting bans and restrictions that were imposed during the Covid-19 pandemic, family rights campaigners have been calling for new legislation to ensure that in the event of future public health emergencies, the health, wellbeing, and family rights of care home residents and patients are protected.
The Detail
The proposed law, which was initiated by the campaign group Rights for Residents and has the support of other campaign groups and 60 cross-party MPs, would award all those in residential care settings or hospitals the legal right to nominate a designated individual as an essential care supporter who would be able to visit them at the home or hospital, assist with their care and provide emotional support.
Why the Together Association supports the call for legislation
Four years on from the outset of the pandemic, hospitals and care facilities continue to impose visiting restrictions, despite the incontrovertible evidence of their detrimental impact on the health, wellbeing of residents and patients. Care providers and hospitals have proven generally unwilling to carry out the individual risk assessments on which visiting access decisions should be premised. Without the legal obligation to do so, it is unlikely that hospital and care providers will change their approach and practice.
Why the Together Association believes the proposed legislation should be opposed
While we fully support calls for legislation to protect the individual and family rights in the event of future public health emergencies, we do not believe the current proposal goes far enough. More importantly, we feel that it could ultimately restrict the rights and freedoms of care recipients and their families further.
There are valid reasons for fearing that once passed, the proposed legislation would effectively hardwire restrictions for perpetuity, not just in times of a public health emergency. As was witnessed during the pandemic, care providers and hospitals were inclined, for ease and convenience, to adopt and impose blanket limitations on visiting access.
We firmly believe that there should be no limits on how many family members and friends can visit - regardless of their caring role. In its current form, Gloria’s Law would give care providers and hospital trusts the authority to use the “at least one” provision as the default, thereby normalising restrictive practices.
Leaving aside the fundamental issue of rights and freedoms, the proposed legislation would be hugely detrimental, forcing patients and residents to choose which family member or friend would provide care support. Not only would this cause inevitable distress; it would be hugely divisive. It would place inexorable pressure on the nominated individual, posing significant risk to their physical and mental health, and is highly likely to exacerbate existing family tensions, increasing the risk of irreparable breakdown in family relationships.
Conclusion
While the Together Association fully supports calls for legislation to protect residents, patients, and their families in the event of future public health emergencies, we cannot support Gloria’s Law, at least not in its current form.
Anne's law is a weird perversion of my 'watch guardian' proposal from many years back.
A watch guardian is a volunteer who is permitted to enter a care home at any time, day or night (they're formalised so you don't have, say, burglars chancing their arm or something). A watch guardian however is *not* bound by 'restrictions' (a nurse could simply restrict them from entering a room where abuse is happening); in-fact, the watch guardian has, effectively, rights to enter any area.
Their job isn't to 'aid' the care workers. They do not 'assist' (they're not medically qualified, it isn't their job). A watch guardian is basically like a public volunteer inspector who can pop out of nowhere - the idea being they will catch abusive nurses off-guard, prevent neglect and disrupt patterns of bad behaviour within the care home industry. Think of it as a more formal 'neighbourhood watch'.
Obviously, if a watch guardian breaks the law, they would have their pass revoked. Because heaven knows some thieving bastard would use it to steal from the elderly if it was open season.
The watch guardian also exempted family members, that is to say, family members de facto have these rights without needing to be a part of this program (the only requirements are: they're a family member of someone living there, and they're not committing any crimes whilst there).
Anne's law has a 'sit down and shut up' type vibe to it.
'Ah yes you need to agree to this NDA under GDPR which requires you don't disclose anything about what is happening to our patients under our "care", failure to comply of course is a prosecutable offence'
It's also quite different from codifying explicit restrictions, for example, prohibiting people with an infectious disease from entering.
I'm sorry police officer Jim you can't enter this building, you need to have all 9 of your COVID shots *and* a facemask before you can uncover this cri- I mean care service.
It'll be dressed up by the media as a good thing and how MSPs have learned lessons and are compassionate etc and i've always said when that happens watch out 'pandemic-2' will arrive shortly after.
This:... "a future ‘outbreak’ (defined by public health) of ANY organism in order to see a loved one in a care home or other setting the following (now widely disproven and harmful medical interventions) become normalised and written into LAW instead of guidance (which was unenforceable) during the ‘COVID’ years.
Lockdown
Masks
Isolation (for non compliant families)
Testing
Full PPE
Contagion paranoia/fear
Hand sanitising
‘Vaccination’/mRNA mandates-no jab no entry
+ can also include obedience to ANY other health diktat
OR no access to a loved one"
Is not law, it is more accurately described as "religious faith" in the powers of medical measures, combined with religious fear that if each and every one of the prevertative measures is not upheld, the "infectious agent" will escape and cause harm, like Satan or some other evil spirit.
Prevention is statistical, not factual. It is not possible to prove that any preventative measure, like:
- Lockdown
- Masks
- Isolation (for non compliant families)
- Testing
- Full PPE
- Contagion paranoia/fear
- Hand sanitising
- Vaccination’/mRNA mandates-no jab no entry
- can also include obedience to ANY other health diktat
- no access to a loved one
- or crossing your fingers,
or crossing your chest when passing a church or graveyard,
or confessing your sins,
or asking for forgiveness
Has actually prevented any case of disease, because the case did not occur.
Upholding "preventative measures" with legal fervor, is religious fervor disguised as science.
The frailty score is what they used to end the life of my father. It's such a horrendous thing knowing the health professionals use this scoring to decide who lives. And it's not a good death either. What a world we live in
He is one of thousands. Still doesn't make it easy knowing the crime's being committed by so called medical professionals. Not sure how they live with themselves. Thank you. It's been a troubling few years learning about what is really going on in the world.
With all of the laws the sting is in the tail and they always sell it as increased protection and for the greater good. They boast about the lofty goal of their laws but in the end it will cause loss of freedom, speech and autonomy of the individual, they are put in place to subjugate the population. It is always about control.
Oh Dave, I have such mixed feelings about this. On one hand I agree completely with you on Anne's law and similar in England and Wales. I share your concern that it will normalise the locking down of care homes while disregarding the needs of the majority of care home residents who don't have an involved relative. These lonely people rely on interactions with the family members of their fellow residents and the many other people who visit care homes - ministers, entertainers, health professionals, school children and so on. These people will have no access during a lockdown and the family members who do will be restricted to the room of their relative - complete with covered face as you say.
On the other hand, I'm hugely supportive of the tireless work done by Campbell & Natasha (and CHRS) and fully understand why they're fighting for something good and lasting to come out of the horrendous situation they lived through with Anne. There is no script and we're all trying to do the best we can, some of which may be misguided but I don't believe intentionally. I'm not quite sure how to deal with this dilemma which, for me, you've brought to a head and wonder if there's a way forward where we can all work together without alienating those who are actually on our side.
Hi Valerie, yes, couldn't agree more with the tireless work by the campaigners (bare in my CHRS blocked me on X many months ago..bit odd given i was the only account highlighting their members testimonies and also why have they not posted any inquiry testimony on social media?). Regardless..moving on....so after listening to how many loved ones were treated during lockdown the real 'Annes Law' to me would make sure those that REMOVED the human rights of residents are held accountable and NO MORE LOCKDOWNS and mask mandates under ANY circumstances. THAT is the ONLY way to avoid a repeat of the March 2020 insanity. All the facts as they stand support this conclusion. There is no way to sugarcoat the reality we all now face...hence the article. I do not believe MSPs/public health would even honour Annes Law...that too will be 'thrown out' if they so choose. Naive to think otherwise. There is no genuine respect shown towards families and society in general (eg-look at the blanket ignorance of Scots COVID inquiry testimonies vs MPs/MSPs). EXISTING human rights law should be used and fought for if necessary. Families should make that clear and be united in holding people to account especially as we now know most people in care homes (Mar-Jun 2020 and likely beyond) died ''WITH COVID'' (often without any test) not OF COVID. It was the extreme measures breaking the preverbial camel's back of our already most frail. Many of these harms will be LEGALISED in 'Annes Law' this is just a fact and a big win for gov/public health. So the bigger picture has to be seen (given the 8 months of first hand testimony). From my perspective the main groups at the inquiry (CHRS/COVID bereaved) have a political bias towards protecting the SNP which is just astonishing given what they and all the other parties have overseen 2020-2022. And then on top we have a weak media that do not report on any of this because Scots would soon realise what really went on, they too are protecting the lies from 2020 and ordinary guys like me and a few others that discuss it and 'call it out' WE get the hassle. Tragic!
Tragic indeed. I don't disagree with anything you've said, the question is, how can like minded people be united in holding decision makers to account when we're all approaching the problem from different perspectives and with different priorities. Perhaps it's not possible and we just have to keep chipping away, doing what we believe to be best. I'm nowhere near as bold as you but your work has definitely informed mine where I'm trying to keep the dialogue open (mainly re masks) with decision makers. It's difficult work because at heart I'm a people pleaser and I just hate being constantly in opposition to colleagues I've worked with for years. Swimming against the tide is exhausting as we all know and we need all the encouragement we can get. Keep up the good work, there's more than one way to get the job done and I'm confident we're having an impact.
Thanks Valerie. I don't think any of the points i rasied here can be refuted..it will be the reality for people. I merely outline what i'd like to see happen but ultimately the direction of travel is upto the families (it's not really 'my fight') and what sort of future do they really want and feel comfortable with handing over to others? I would say all medical interventions require full informed consent, that should be the focus and cornerstone of any new pandemic/outbreak 'laws' around testing, vaccines and mask wearing. In a free society people should be free to choose without punishment. If we are NOT a free society with two tier rules for compliant and non compliant then at least we should all stop playing pretend? eg-If my family members were in a care home i would never wear a mask or take a test or inject myself with the latest pharma potion in order just to visit them. That's insane. But where were are heading unfortunately. The ''new normal''. History lessons required.
''"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -Benjamin Franklin
I agree totally. In England, lobby groups are pushing for a very similar law: "Gloria's Law". Not only will these laws fail to protect those in hospitals and care homes from the imposition of visiting restrictions (read the small print in both) but they will hardwire restrictive visiting practices for perpetuity.
Here is our brief on why we are opposed to Gloria's Law ( and by extension, Anne's Law)
Gloria’s Law’ and why it must be opposed
The Rationale behind Gloria’s Law
In light of the evident harms inflicted on care home residents and patients as a result of the visiting bans and restrictions that were imposed during the Covid-19 pandemic, family rights campaigners have been calling for new legislation to ensure that in the event of future public health emergencies, the health, wellbeing, and family rights of care home residents and patients are protected.
The Detail
The proposed law, which was initiated by the campaign group Rights for Residents and has the support of other campaign groups and 60 cross-party MPs, would award all those in residential care settings or hospitals the legal right to nominate a designated individual as an essential care supporter who would be able to visit them at the home or hospital, assist with their care and provide emotional support.
Why the Together Association supports the call for legislation
Four years on from the outset of the pandemic, hospitals and care facilities continue to impose visiting restrictions, despite the incontrovertible evidence of their detrimental impact on the health, wellbeing of residents and patients. Care providers and hospitals have proven generally unwilling to carry out the individual risk assessments on which visiting access decisions should be premised. Without the legal obligation to do so, it is unlikely that hospital and care providers will change their approach and practice.
Why the Together Association believes the proposed legislation should be opposed
While we fully support calls for legislation to protect the individual and family rights in the event of future public health emergencies, we do not believe the current proposal goes far enough. More importantly, we feel that it could ultimately restrict the rights and freedoms of care recipients and their families further.
There are valid reasons for fearing that once passed, the proposed legislation would effectively hardwire restrictions for perpetuity, not just in times of a public health emergency. As was witnessed during the pandemic, care providers and hospitals were inclined, for ease and convenience, to adopt and impose blanket limitations on visiting access.
We firmly believe that there should be no limits on how many family members and friends can visit - regardless of their caring role. In its current form, Gloria’s Law would give care providers and hospital trusts the authority to use the “at least one” provision as the default, thereby normalising restrictive practices.
Leaving aside the fundamental issue of rights and freedoms, the proposed legislation would be hugely detrimental, forcing patients and residents to choose which family member or friend would provide care support. Not only would this cause inevitable distress; it would be hugely divisive. It would place inexorable pressure on the nominated individual, posing significant risk to their physical and mental health, and is highly likely to exacerbate existing family tensions, increasing the risk of irreparable breakdown in family relationships.
Conclusion
While the Together Association fully supports calls for legislation to protect residents, patients, and their families in the event of future public health emergencies, we cannot support Gloria’s Law, at least not in its current form.
https://togetherdeclaration.org/
Anne's law is a weird perversion of my 'watch guardian' proposal from many years back.
A watch guardian is a volunteer who is permitted to enter a care home at any time, day or night (they're formalised so you don't have, say, burglars chancing their arm or something). A watch guardian however is *not* bound by 'restrictions' (a nurse could simply restrict them from entering a room where abuse is happening); in-fact, the watch guardian has, effectively, rights to enter any area.
Their job isn't to 'aid' the care workers. They do not 'assist' (they're not medically qualified, it isn't their job). A watch guardian is basically like a public volunteer inspector who can pop out of nowhere - the idea being they will catch abusive nurses off-guard, prevent neglect and disrupt patterns of bad behaviour within the care home industry. Think of it as a more formal 'neighbourhood watch'.
Obviously, if a watch guardian breaks the law, they would have their pass revoked. Because heaven knows some thieving bastard would use it to steal from the elderly if it was open season.
The watch guardian also exempted family members, that is to say, family members de facto have these rights without needing to be a part of this program (the only requirements are: they're a family member of someone living there, and they're not committing any crimes whilst there).
Anne's law has a 'sit down and shut up' type vibe to it.
''Anne's law has a 'sit down and shut up' type vibe to it.''
-Absolultely. In another lockdown, look.. just do what we say this time and we'll let you in. Sick given what we now know about the 'COVID' era.
Easy to see how it could be abused.
'Ah yes you need to agree to this NDA under GDPR which requires you don't disclose anything about what is happening to our patients under our "care", failure to comply of course is a prosecutable offence'
It's also quite different from codifying explicit restrictions, for example, prohibiting people with an infectious disease from entering.
I'm sorry police officer Jim you can't enter this building, you need to have all 9 of your COVID shots *and* a facemask before you can uncover this cri- I mean care service.
It has very much a
Problem-Reaction-Solution vibe to it
On the outside it appears like a good thing - like action is being taken
But in reality, the only thing being taken is more of our rights!
It'll be dressed up by the media as a good thing and how MSPs have learned lessons and are compassionate etc and i've always said when that happens watch out 'pandemic-2' will arrive shortly after.
How are you doing? Any joy with Twitter appeal?
Doing well. Twitter...ack...nothing. It's a conspiracy. ;-)
It’s a shit show
Funny I was saying at weekend how Bebo and then Facebook fell to shit
Same end awaits Twitter
This:... "a future ‘outbreak’ (defined by public health) of ANY organism in order to see a loved one in a care home or other setting the following (now widely disproven and harmful medical interventions) become normalised and written into LAW instead of guidance (which was unenforceable) during the ‘COVID’ years.
Lockdown
Masks
Isolation (for non compliant families)
Testing
Full PPE
Contagion paranoia/fear
Hand sanitising
‘Vaccination’/mRNA mandates-no jab no entry
+ can also include obedience to ANY other health diktat
OR no access to a loved one"
Is not law, it is more accurately described as "religious faith" in the powers of medical measures, combined with religious fear that if each and every one of the prevertative measures is not upheld, the "infectious agent" will escape and cause harm, like Satan or some other evil spirit.
Prevention is statistical, not factual. It is not possible to prove that any preventative measure, like:
- Lockdown
- Masks
- Isolation (for non compliant families)
- Testing
- Full PPE
- Contagion paranoia/fear
- Hand sanitising
- Vaccination’/mRNA mandates-no jab no entry
- can also include obedience to ANY other health diktat
- no access to a loved one
- or crossing your fingers,
or crossing your chest when passing a church or graveyard,
or confessing your sins,
or asking for forgiveness
Has actually prevented any case of disease, because the case did not occur.
Upholding "preventative measures" with legal fervor, is religious fervor disguised as science.
To your health, Tracy
Author: A New Theory of Cure
The frailty score is what they used to end the life of my father. It's such a horrendous thing knowing the health professionals use this scoring to decide who lives. And it's not a good death either. What a world we live in
Shocking stuff, sorry to hear that!
He is one of thousands. Still doesn't make it easy knowing the crime's being committed by so called medical professionals. Not sure how they live with themselves. Thank you. It's been a troubling few years learning about what is really going on in the world.