Discover more from News Uncut: Straight Talk, Hard Truths
"Our safety is under threat"
Law firm fears complainants in Met Police jab case are now having their reputations smeared as further letter sent to deputy commissioner
By Mark Sharman
THE group seeking a criminal investigation into the roll-out of Covid-19 jabs say they fear for their safety after the Metropolitan Police rejected their claims.
In an extraordinary move, solicitor Philip Hyland of PJH Law, has made a comprehensive and public response to the police decision.
And his open letter is prefaced by this note: “Complainants have reason to believe that their personal safety is under threat. All Complainants have reason to believe that concerted attempts are being made to smear their reputations. It is therefore safer to send an open letter.”
The group claims Government ministers, medical regulators, scientists and the media were grossly negligent over the Covid measures, including the safety of the new mRNA jabs, the validity of drug trials and the effects of lockdown.
They presented more than 400 witness statements from world-renowned scientists, doctors and jab victims.
This week the Met rejected the complaints, saying in a statement:“Following an assessment of all the available evidence, it is clear that no criminal offences are apparent. The Metropolitan Police will not be launching a criminal investigation and no further action will be taken.”
Mt Hyland’s immediate reaction was “this isn’t over” and he added: “We are disappointed with the inadequacy of reasoning from the Met. We would have expected better.”
Now the group has issued a strong 7000-word letter, addressed to Jane Connors, Assistant Deputy Metropolitan Police Commissioner, with allegations covering a wide range of subjects, from the outbreak of Covid-19 in Wuhan, through the suppression of available potential treatments, to the lack of accurate trial data on the vaccine roll-out, to the extent of deaths and injuries being reported by medics and the public after vaccinations.
The document says: “It is the Complainants’ view that the evidential threshold has been met to at least arrest, caution and interview named suspects.”