Share this page!

Francis Hoar Profile picture
Twitter logo
20 Oct, 5 tweets, 2 min read
.@RhonddaBryant is also a liar.
Briant claimed that ICU occupancy was half what it was last year. It was almost identical.
See also:

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
　

Keep Current with Francis Hoar

Francis Hoar Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @Francis_Hoar

Francis Hoar Profile picture
19 Oct
This is a lie. A lie.

Hospital beds in Greater Manchester are *below* their occupancy last year.

This confected hysteria, whipped up by government and media, is destroying our country.

More lies by the Welsh government:
https://t.co/yJBQoAwt1I
https://t.co/YmqRrGlJ67
Read 6 tweets
Francis Hoar Profile picture
6 Oct
The Grounds and the witness statement (containing the evidential basis of the claim) by @mikegardner_wb in the new judicial review against the Rule of Six and other recent regulations have now been published (see below).

static.crowdjustice.com/group_claim_do…

static.crowdjustice.com/group_claim_do…
Ground One argues that the use of the emergency procedure (under s 45R of the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 (as amended) was unlawful in the absence of any rational basis for considering these regulations to be urgent or (further and alternatively) necessary.
Ground Two mirrors the first ground in the Dolan (No. 1), the challenge to the original 'lockdown' regulations that is to be heard in the Court of Appeal on 29th October. It argues that the use of the 1984 Act for regulations as far reaching as these is unlawful.
Read 8 tweets
Francis Hoar Profile picture
3 Oct
Very interesting on the government’s assessment of the efficacy of community mask wearing, by Jen who has been challenging the face covering regulations.
This is obvious and has been said from the start. Mask wearing in the community inevitably increases the likelihood of spread through touch *if* a person has the virus and is symptomatic (they are otherwise v unlikely to spread it). Image
This will always be done given the way in which masks are and it was known would be worn. And it is particularly likely in circumstances where people put on and take off masks...
Read 5 tweets
Francis Hoar Profile picture
27 Sep
Not just following a positive test, following ‘close contact’ with someone who has had one.
This is a deprivation of liberty that does not fall within the exception to Article 5 of the ECHR (Enhorn v Sweden). It is also false imprisonment.
There is no empirical basis for saying that *anyone* in close proximity with one individual who *might* have been infectious (and the PCR test is a deeply inaccurate test of whether they are) is ‘potentially infectious’.
To suggest that would be to enlarge the category to the extent that it was meaningless. It would include anyone who had shared a train carriage, And, where deprivation of the most fundamental of rights is concerned, any exceptions must be carefully constrained.
Read 6 tweets
Francis Hoar Profile picture
27 Sep
I hope that anyone waking up to reflect that riot police broke up peaceful political protests at two of the world centres of freedom of speech - Trafalgar Square and Speakers Corner - feels ashamed of what this once great country has become.
It also appears that the police acted unlawfully in breaking up the protest. The two relevant parts of reg. 5 of the No. 2 Regs (as amended) are below. If the risk assessment was undertaken and the organiser took reasonable steps to limit transmission, the protest was lawful.
It doesn’t cease to be so by virtue of the behaviour of the protesters if (which is not established) they didn’t comply with the risk assessment.
Read 5 tweets
Francis Hoar Profile picture
22 Sep
We have had two comparable pandemics in the last 100 years: in 1957 and 1968/69. Both HK & Asian Flu killed more British ppl per million.
GDP grew by 2% in 1957, 5% in 1968 and over 2% in 1969. As opposed to the greatest depression in the history of the United Kingdom in 2020.
An economic collapse affects not just livelihoods but lives and communities. It is one of many considerations that should have informed every decision about restrictions to have been imposed, on economic activity (directly) and otherwise.
.
GDP Sources: countryeconomy.com/gdp/uk?year=19…; countryeconomy.com/gdp/uk?year=19….
Flu deaths: belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/uk/histor…
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

Like this author's thread?

Get email notifications when new thread is out from this Author!

Check out other threads from this Author!

Read all threads by @Francis_Hoar