Between the state and the son

Protecting 'Tom'

Yesterday I went to court to witness the conclusion of a case in which a mother sought to prevent the state giving a so-called covid vaccination to her son, ‘Tom,’ who is 22 years old but "with a mental age of about 18 months."

The judge was elevated above the court, a ruler in a high place, a prince of this principality. On his left he was flanked by a young black woman who attended to his every clerical need, who pulled out his chair for him to sit on and bowed her head when entering or exiting in his presence.

A lighter skinned man sat to the judge's right and in front and below him there was a black male usher with a goatee and a marble sheen to his shaven head. Their subservience to the white, grey-bearded Judge Hayden gave a slightly colonial feel to the already anachronistic proceedings in which he was referred to as "m'lord." The usher sat above a shelf filled with thick tomes dated by years, at the end of which were glasses and jugs of water. A bible was visible with the word 'common' in its title split over two lines.

The state presumed to represent the best interests of Tom. In its employ were two solicitors and two barristers. To give them the appearance of learned venerability, the barristers were faux-aged with wigs of grey hair arranged in rollers, and wore black capes over their clothes like old women at the hairdressers. The wigs had rat tails.

Tom is a 22 year old man "with severe learning difficulties and a heart condition," whom his supposed representatives had never met, whose nappies they had never changed, whose favourite food they do not know, whose laughter they have never shared and whose tears they have never dried. They represented him, preposterously, as though defending him against his mother, his full-time carer who wished that he not be injected with the so-called covid vaccinations that carry with them an extensive list of potential effects that include death.

Other than the judge, all those in court seemed to be engaged in battering away on laptops, as though playing a racing game on an early computer. Words galloped left to right across screens in a race that ebbed and flowed with the cadence of the speech it recorded.

Above the judge was emblazoned a coat of arms familiar from boxes of cereal beneath which read the words 'dieu et mon droit.'

Proceedings began with an exacting discussion of the timeline of the progression of the case. The timeline served to demonstrate for the record that correct judgements had been made at all junctures, though at differing times government gudiance had recommended injections for those with Tom's specific medical condition and at other times it had not. Over the years Tom had been in and out of the threat of injection as though engaged in a macabre hokey cokey.

The judge said that "the point was not whether that guidance was right or wrong but that it was the consensus at the time- the national consensus," -perhaps like the consensus at one time on lobotomy, or thalidomide.

Judge Hayden was also at pains to clarify that the "landscape" and the "climate had changed," as the"virus and vaccine evolved," with "the resilience built by the infection of many people and vaccination (now) making serious illness less likely."

That vaccination was ever necessary is risible nonsense. This is evinced by one face of the hydra of the state downgrading the alleged 'covid' from the status of a High Consequence Infectious Disease on March 18^th 2020, before lockdown began. It is demonstrated by the excess deaths figures for 2020 when compared with the annual figures for the previous 20 years. It is clearly evidenced by Tom's continued good health.

In contrast there was no evidence for the safety of giving someone with Tom's condition a covid vaccination as no such testing was ever done.

The judge was at pains to point out that at no point was Tom ever going to be forced to be vaccinated. One might then ask what had been the point of the whole farcical case? How exactly did the state intend to fulfil a court's order to inject a son against his mother's wishes?

The painstaking examination of the chronology of the case laboured upon establishing the date that Tom's mother changed their GP. With the wider issue of life and death in their hands one particularly priggish barrister bickered about this date like a haughty child.

The intimation was initially that Tom's mother had responded to an unfavourable ruling in 2023 by "shopping around" for a GP to service her wishes, as though a mother recognising the poor judgement of her General Practitioner may not justifiably seek out a second opinon from someone with a little more relevant practice.

As it dawned upon the advocates of the state that the change of GP had occurred in 2022, prior to the afore-mentioned ruling, they floundered, attributing the dating to clerical error. Confusion arose. The case came to court because Tom's first GP had recommended he be injected. If his second GP in 2022 had decided this was not necessary why was the court not aware of this in 2024? Obviously, given the infalliblity of the state this could only be the mother's fault.

Throughout the proceedings the only criticism implied or otherwise, the only integrity or judgement questioned, was that of Tom's mother. That her second GP shared her views was "an extraordinary state of affairs," that has led to that GP being reported to the General Medical Council, although it is unclear by whom. It was even suggested, without any evidence to support the smear, that the dating of the change of GP to 2022 was in some way a deception on Tom's mother's part. To settle the matter the judge issued a court order to the relevant GP's surgery demanding an immediate response. Somewhere in the land, patients were kept waiting while the honesty and integrity of Tom's mother was established.

An unfamiliarity with important dates plagued the judge who could not understand how the change of GP in April 2022 could have been motivated by anything concerning the covid vaccinations as he contended that they had not yet been created. He had to be informed that the lockdowns began in March 2020 and the vaccination roll-out in December of the same year.

Finally the judge delivered his judgement -a monotonous dictation that reiterated much of what had preceded it and began and concluded with technical difficulties and audio feedback which the clerk corrected as though showing a bumbling parent how to make a video call. It ended with two versions of the judge's face on screen, one of which was frozen.

The judge decided it was no longer in Tom's best interests for him to receive the covid vaccination.

Following his summation the judge maintained the transparency order on the case for up to six months. Transparency is double-speak for opacity. The order preserves the anonymity for all those named in the case, including the so-called expert witnesses. A perceived threat to them was aired as justification for this order by the state. The irony that Tom and his mother had lived under a real threat for years was evidently lost. Full media exposure for a rare victory was denied.

When it was suggested that Tom's mother favoured the lifting of the order the judge presented this as pitting the article 10 (freedom of expression) human rights of the mother against the article 8 (right to privacy) interests of the son. In these cases relatives can be emotional and their judgement unsound, the judge explained. This view exists in a broader context in which the expression of emotions is considered to be a flaw, but in this instance suggests that the judge considered himself as operating without such emotion. This overlooks the fact that the judge’s views and indeed the whole case are founded on the fear that has been deliberately engendered in him and the wider public since March 2020 when behavioural scientists stated their intention to "use media to increase the sense of personal threat." Again there was no evidence by which to impugn Tom's mother as irrational and in fact Judge Burrows of a previous hearing had commented upon her good reason in making decisions in the best interests of her son.

Then it was over.

Stephen Jackson and Paul Diamond who had represented Tom's mother left court wheeling their cases behind them like pilots merging once again into the flow of humanity in the streets.

The perfunctory ending of the case belied its significance for at least one home in the country.

Against the assembled might of the state, against the psychological warfare, the massed pressure of experts and peers, against the sophistry of solicitors and bluster of barristers, faced with inequalities of finance and training, somewhere, unnamed, unheralded, with her hands full caring for her disabled child, a mother had triumphed by standing firm between the state and her son.