Read the full letter here from GP Dr Sam White’s legal representative to the Chief Executive of NHS England. Extracts below:

The allegations are that the following groups of people have committed unlawful and
potentially criminal acts in breach of their common law obligations to act in the best
interests of the public as well as in breach of their common law obligation of doing no
harm to the public.
The Nolan Principles of Standards in Public Life are alleged to have been breached.
The groups of people who my client alleges have breached common law obligations
are:

1. HM Government.
2. The Executive Board of the NHS.
3. SAGE.
4. Senior public office holders within the civil service.
5. The Executive Board of the MHRA. (Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency).

In relation to the MHRA they have failed to ensure that the vaccine advertising
programme meets their common law obligations as well as their statutory obligations.
The MHRA in granting emergency use authorisation for the vaccines has failed in their
obligation to consider whether there are safe and effective medicines available as an
alternative to vaccination.
The MHRA is failing in its obligations in failing either to instruct a bio-distribution study
is conducted on those who have been vaccinated or in failing to publish the findings of
such a bio-distribution study. A bio-distribution study is a study of what happens to the
vaccine after it is injected into the body.
I am instructed to set out the factual allegations in a comprehensible way, free of jargon, so the general public can follow what is being said.

To assist my client has provided source material to back up every single one of his
principal facts and that source material will be referenced via footnotes or endnotes.
The Vaccination Roll Out:
Clinicians practising within the NHS are obliged to do two things when administering a
vaccine:

1. To do no harm
2. To obtain the free and informed consent of those being vaccinated.

The law on free and informed consent is set out in the case of Montgomery.
Montgomery’s case which went to the Supreme Court laid down the principles for what
amounts to free and informed consent.

1. That the patient is given sufficient information – to allow individuals to
   make choices that will affect their health and well being on proper
   information.1
2. Sufficient information means informing the patient of the availability of other
   treatments.
   
3. That the patient is informed of the material risks of taking the vaccine and the
   material risks of declining the vaccine.

Breach of these principles on free and informed consent is professional gross
misconduct at an individual level.
At an organisational level if the NHS does not have clear evidence that every person
being vaccinated has given free and informed consent it will render those holding
executive office within the NHS as legally liable for those institutional failings.
The Government has set the vaccination strategy. The NHS has led the roll out. The
strategy and roll out has included the provision of information to the public.
Much of the information has been inadequate or misleading.

(Read the rest here)