I sent these questions to members of the Science and Technology Cmte to ask Chris Whitty and Patrick Vallance. All linked carefully to government & other data.
They have not been asked, so I am publishing them to show how these public officials could have been examined.
This appears to be the serious criminal offence of false imprisonment. @gmpolice must investigate. If these students are being locked in their Hall or restricted from leaving, they must require these students to be released and should arrest those responsible. @UniversityManch
There is no possible legal justification. Under the new Regulations, students are permitted to leave their residences for a reasonable excuse. The list is inclusive, not exclusive, and includes leaving for the purposes of outdoor recreation as well as exercise.
Nor do the Regulations permit any but police constables, PCSOs or officers appointed by the Secretary of State to enforce the Regulations (in any circumstances). Nor is it ever permitted for any person - including officers - ...
Dear lockdowners,
Have a look at this chart and give yourselves a big pat on the back for the numerous excess deaths from heart disease for which your policy was responsible.
And that is just one of the many harms it caused.
And I will continue to repeat, until I am blue in the face:
No excess triage for respiratory infections;
No excess treatment for acute respiratory infections; and
No excess deaths from acute respiratory infections.
Sources here. The heart disease chart was published by Carl Heneghan from government data.
We need to get this message out.
We have average levels of triage for respiratory infections, below average hospital admissions for and deaths from acute respiratory infections. The focus on statistics derived from flawed PCR tests are causing destructive fear and policies.
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).
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.