Do you support Free Speech and Anti-Discrimination?

This is a most excellent letter David. I would like to suggest also that the "protected characteristic" of disability, meaning mental or physical impairment, as per the Equality Act 2010 must also pertain to those who have been permanently vaccine damaged - of which we know there are not only epic numbers without official recognition; but also some who have received payouts from the (insulting) VDPS. As such, this action by the trustees can clearly be defined as discriminatory against this cohort of the vaccine damaged. Imagine if, for example, the Hall decided to cancel a film that looked at the issues facing people with cancer. This would clearly constitute discrimination under the terms of the Act. The vaccine damaged will obviously equally count.

In addition, given that Informed Consent is enshrined in law as per the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014, which mandates that all individuals must give consent before any care or treatment is provided - this action of the trustees to prevent the showing in a public venue of a film that will facilitate just that - informed consent - must surely mark another violation. There is of course case law to further cement this - including for example Montgomery vs Lanarkshire 2015. Not to mention, of course, The Nuremberg Code, which while not legally binding is nonetheless recognised as a cornerstone of our legislative system.



Sophie