This Forum is Closed

Health, Family & Eugenics => Fluoride => Topic started by: Jonnie Goodboy on April 21, 2012, 12:10:39 pm



Title: BIRMINGHAM UK; PEOPLE AND COUNCIL. YOU NEED TO FOLLOW THE SCOTTISH LEGAL EXAMPLE
Post by: Jonnie Goodboy on April 21, 2012, 12:10:39 pm
IT IS the serious objective opinion of this writer that fluoridation of Birmingham and Solihull's water supplies has been maliciously intentional and is now being used as part of the greater 'experiment' in an extensible SCIENTIFICALLY supported POLITICAL campaign to test new social-policy ideas on a long-term and heavily fluoridated populus. The objective: - To Test level of reactions or changes in measurable 'resilience' of the Public to such political suggestions or changes, following years of neurotoxic-poisoning and hightened carcinogen risk, by forced, that is unmandated fluoridation of these towns/areas' domestic water-supplies.

http://www.ukcaf.org/files/legal_analysis_of_fluoridation_in_eu_-_updated_14t.doc

The foundation of the British and Irish Governments’ policy to impose fluoridation is the claim that it does not constitute public medication. In Scotland, this has been rejected; the practice was confirmed as being a medicinal intervention by Lord Jauncy:

(P.370) "Fluoride is intended to produce a positive effect on the body of the consumer after ingestion. Thus the water instead of being the object of treatment becomes the means whereby fluoride is carried into the consumer's body to effect a result which could also be achieved by the consumption of fluoride pills or of food and drink containing high levels of fluoride. . . It would necessarily involve a restriction on the freedom of choice of the individual who would have little alternative but to consume the fluoridated water whether he liked it or not.".

In this case, it was ruled that  fluoridation was ultra vires the remit of the water supplier, and consequently it is no longer practiced in Scotland. This interpretation appears not to be accepted by the health sector in England, however, and this part of the judgment is invariably ignored by proponents of fluoridation.

http://www.ukcaf.org/files/legal_analysis_of_fluoridation_in_eu_-_updated_14t.doc

See also the thousands of anti-fluoride, albeit rather intellectual aprisals of the risks available online.
and ... http://www.ukcaf.org/oshlack_v_rous_water_-_preliminary_ruling.html