Doctor Banned For Questioning Efficacy of Masks Wins High Court Case

a reply to: ScepticScot

The opposing side in this case was the GMC, not the Health Secretary, his qualifications ate irrelevant and UK ministers rarely have qualifications specific to their department.

That would explain why they are incompetent and not fit for purpose then.

The GMC tribunals ruling was found to be

“an error of law and a clear misdirection,”

Funny how opposing views just get censored or banned on all the major platforms...it’s almost like they don’t want people to know both sides of an argument. Instead they go for misdirection..


The GMC and their ilk must really dislike those pesky human rights acts.

originally posted by: surfer_soul
a reply to: ScepticScot

The opposing side in this case was the GMC, not the Health Secretary, his qualifications ate irrelevant and UK ministers rarely have qualifications specific to their department.

That would explain why they are incompetent and not fit for purpose then.

The GMC tribunals ruling was found to be

“an error of law and a clear misdirection,”

Funny how opposing views just get censored or banned on all the major platforms...it’s almost like they don’t want people to know both sides of an argument. Instead they go for misdirection..


The GMC and their ilk must really dislike those pesky human rights acts.

UK ministers are elected member of Parliament and we have permanent civil servants and appointed specialists advisors who are subject matter experts. Funnily enough different countries use different systems.

Part of the GMC's role is to maintain professional
standards, the rulling was about the process the GMC used, not the claims White made.

a reply to: ScepticScot



The ruling was about the GMC’s “misdirection” and that they were wrong to censor White from speaking out.

A good day for human rights yes?

originally posted by: surfer_soul
a reply to: ScepticScot



The ruling was about the GMC’s “misdirection” and that they were wrong to censor White from speaking out.

A good day for human rights yes?

Actually the rulling was that they hadn't followed the correct process in considering his human rights before applying the restrictions. The ruling specifically says that the decision was wrong purely from a procedural perspective.

originally posted by: ancientlight
a reply to: Smigg

Excellent

But I don't expect the mask mandates to lift or sheep to stop wearing them alone in their cars.

God help me I want to run every idiot off the road I see wearing a mask in their cars.

Absolutely stupid low born sheep. Part of me wishes there were some mass sinister campaign to reduce the world's population because we are better off without stupid idiots of that magnitude.