Source: Bigstock

We know the Cambridge Union just held a shameful, ugly debate on making all vaccinations mandatory, because someone had the foresight to film it and put it on YouTube.

When you search the Cambridge Union’s website for the debate it says, “Oops, we are unable to find what you were looking for.” Indeed they are, if what you are looking for is an elite university imparting knowledge and critical thinking.

Cambridge can take this debate off its website and try to erase any trace of it ever having taken place, never mind admit that it ended in a vote for mandatory vaccination. But it cannot deny this happened because here it is.

“This house would make vaccinations mandatory” was the debate on the 17th October at 8 p.m. (On October 31 they’re doing “This house welcomes the decline of America.”)

If you can bear to click the YouTube link, you can watch a lot of acne-ridden budding fascists taking their seats in a wood-paneled chamber. A bespectacled Harry Potter look-alike points and bosses people around, whilst another geek wears a big black mask to prove his point—which is presumably that he feels unsafe just being in a room where not having vaccines is being discussed.

As an unvaccinated person myself, there aren’t swear words strong enough for how I feel about these morons.

Government ministers and Big Pharma executives trying to force Covid vaccines on us I understand. I’m a realist. But students? They’ve no dog in this race. It’s gratuitous.

The “debate” starts with Alessio D’Angelo, union president, in a black dinner suit and bow tie, speaking in a very posh voice and saying “Ya!” as he introduces the speakers.

A spotty first-year student called Haris Khan, in a dinner suit and bow tie, then steps up to propose mandatory vaccines. What he said was so stupid it doesn’t deserve reporting, but he compared forced vaccinating to having car insurance and picking up dog poo—“necessary for the greater good.”

“Yes, there’s loss of autonomy over one’s own body, but…” and he never finished that point, because he couldn’t, so he tailed off and blathered on about something else.

He claimed unvaccinated people were passing on Covid to others who are vaccinated. But if they’re vaccinated and therefore protected, how does that happen, Haris? By the way, I got it from a fully jabbed person. But really, why bother arguing with this fool? He kept sniffing, like he’d got something up his nose. In an attempt to explain how the mandate would work, he said, “It’s vaccinating or you can’t do x, y, z…”

He was so vacuous he bored me half to death, but when he finished the chamber erupted in applause so hysterical you would think Aerosmith had just performed “Love in an Elevator.”

The only person who interrupted him with common sense was an American in the stalls.

“So you can’t think of when health care has gone wrong? I love your confidence in the NHS,” shouted the American.

This threw the dickie bow dork off and he started blathering about people who were against vaccines being the stupid sorts who go hunting and gathering. What a twat.

Then his sniffing couldn’t hold whatever was up there anymore, and he had to start wiping his nose with his hand. If he was my son I’d stop his funds. That’s for having disgusting manners and for reading out intellectually lazy work, I’d say. Is this what your father and I are paying for? Grow up. Get a job.

Another student who spoke for the motion was called Pollyanna, fittingly. She was a rosy-cheeked cherub of a thing who looked like a colicky baby as she burped up the following:

“If you put the right barriers in place, humans will choose the path of least resistance.” Yes, dear, and if you beat someone with a big stick they will go the path of least resistance. Doesn’t make it right, though, does it?

“Vaccination is not about your individual public choice; it’s about public health—you are putting people at risk,” she further belched. “We need to be a society that believes in the science, that knows vaccines are effective,” she trilled. Everyone clapped wildly.

Speaking against the motion, Professor Helen Bedford, looking po-faced, didn’t really speak against compelling vaccination at all, but at least she said people like me should only be fined. Cheers, mate.

Another student speaking “against the motion,” Gabriel Rubens, only didn’t want mandatory vaccination because it might make anti-vaxxers more popular. “Ninety percent of people took the coronavirus vaccine and that’s good.” Right, move along, you’ve nothing to say.

Next? No. Nobody was speaking out against the Covid vaccine. Professor Jonathon Heeney, a “vaccinologist” and fellow of Darwin College, made Charles Darwin turn in his grave as he spoke for the motion by getting basic principles of evolution wrong.

He argued that viruses mutate because of the people who won’t get vaccinated. Er, they mutate when you put them under pressure, thicko, which is what vaccines do. That’s why vaccines have to be constantly updated for new variants.

He then quoted “recent data showing 10.2 healthy years of life gained because of the use of vaccines.”

I’m 52 now and it’s looking good so far, so maybe I lose 10.2 years off the end, or maybe I don’t. When shall I start counting? At 60, 70, or 80? The man was quoting garbage statistics that were conveniently unprovable.

He argued that we all lose our liberties if we won’t all have “the vaccine,” because then we get lockdowns.

Yes, that’s certainly the official threat. Who paid you to do a bit of Project Fearmongering?

“Vaccines help us to live our lives without restrictions,” he argued. Oh, behave.

Someone shouted from the stalls again, this time asking about MMR and autism. Professor 10.2 called Andrew Wakefield’s work “malarkey.” He got really quite cross and defensive. “That’s fiction!” he snapped. (Oh, and claiming you get precisely ten years, two months, and twelve days more of life if you’re vaccinated is not fiction, or malarkey?)

The chamber got noisy. The chairman stopped it. So a debate nearly started but they got on top of it just in time.

Another student, Isla Harris, tried to speak against mandatory vaccination but was so obviously scared of being socially canceled, or just plain lynched, she kept waving her arms defensively and wandering away from the podium as if she was trying to get to the door just in case.

She tried to argue that science was not 100 percent right all the time. “Science is messy, fluid, and evolving,” she said, making a good point, but someone easily interrupted her and she folded like a damp rag. It was hopeless.

The bottom line was that the Cambridge Union held a debate with both proposers and opposers speaking in favor of the central idea of vaccination being 100 percent good, always. All they disagreed upon was how hard you should hold someone down to have it.

To allow someone of the opposite view, an anti-vaxxer—gasp—to get up and explain why they didn’t trust experimental mRNA nanotechnology, and mounting evidence of blood clots, heart attacks, strokes, and turbo-cancers…that would have caused so much shock and horror the snowflakes might never have recovered.

As it was, they all got their cozy worldview reinforced—that the state was looking after them—so they could go sleepy-byes that night and have sweet dreams. Gurgle, gurgle.

This is why the spooks historically recruit from Cambridge. There you will find men, and now plenty of women, who were born of the establishment, were trained by the establishment, and want to protect the establishment.

Even so, wanting to turn your country into a place where people are held down and forcibly injected is going it some.

But is that what they are saying? What does a vaccine mandate really mean?

The health secretary in the U.K., Wes Streeting, who is himself recovering from cancer acquired since 2021, and has lost a kidney, and has now found another lump in his body that is being investigated, has announced that he wants to bring in a new digital health-care ID card.

Like its E.U. counterpart, this will be used to keep a person’s medical information “in one handy place,” as they say, easily accessible for them (and the authorities). So it does seem Britain is going down the mandate road, but what is a mandate?

If you look it up, a mandate is not compulsory in a legal sense. It’s saying you must do this or you are breaking the law. It is not a provision that can physically force something on you, only punish you for not doing it.

So I would say fine, I’ll break the law. I would rather go to prison than have the Covid jab. Then the system fines me or puts me in prison. But I still haven’t had it.

How do they make me have it? How do they get me strapped to a gurney with a needle in my arm and my bodily autonomy ended?

What is the legal precedent? Well, horrific things have been done to people’s bodies during wars, to soldiers and civilians, and of course the state can kill people if they’re sentenced to death.

But out of wartime, and in the absence of an actual death sentence passed in court, all I can think of as a legal precedent to end bodily autonomy is the suffragettes.

They were held down and had tubes put up their noses to force-feed them when they went on hunger strike in prison in the early 1900s. This was said to be for their own good, but also because it was argued at that time that the greater good was served by not giving in to their demand for women to get the vote.

Retrospectively, society now affirms they were right, of course. And many years ahead, society might say the vaccine refusers like me were right. But that doesn’t help me now.

Currently, in the case of mentally deficient people, and the very elderly in care homes, the Covid vaccine is given after papers are signed by the relative with power of attorney, even if the mentally disabled or old person says, “No, please, I don’t want it.”

The state could try to argue I have lost my mind and it is acting in my best interest by making me a ward of the state. And it could try to get my next of kin to consent.

But it all seems like a lot of paperwork and court orders, when you multiply me by the many other millions who won’t have the Covid vaccine, nor any other vaccines since we encountered this madness. Maybe someone with more legal knowledge can enlighten me as to how they might do a job lot of forced vaccinating?

Would people be rounded up into vaccine administration camps, where the unvaccinated could be processed more efficiently?

Or are they really saying, these Cambridge geniuses, that a vaccine mandate will simply stop the unvaccinated doing “x, y, and z.” In which case, we just need to decide what the x, y, and z are. Traveling by plane, obviously, but maybe also earning money, or going to the shops to buy food. A sort of slowed-up execution, if you will, unless the individual concerned is one of those hunter-gatherer types who can fend for themselves outside the system.