I wrote a long-read on the human rights implications of lockdown.
Not straightforward, I tried to take seriously extreme danger of Covid, difficulty in proving the impact of lockdown measures and the collateral damage they have on our lives unherd.com/2021/02/the-da…
If you are looking for an article saying lockdowns are bad and shouldn’t happen, you will be disappointed. If you are looking for an article saying lockdowns are the obvious best way to deal with a pandemic, the stricter the better, not for you. The world is complicated...
I appreciate it’s a hotly contested issue and people have formed rival camps but having spent a lot of time talking about the complex human rights implications, and difficulties in proving what works, I think it is crucial to analyse properly as we approach a year of lockdown
I have written a few articles on this theme on the past year so if you want to follow my thinking start here (31 March, had held up pretty well I think) newstatesman.com/politics/uk/20…
A short thread on why I am dubious that the government can lawfully impose charges on travellers entering the UK for quarantine and testing (proposed at £1,750 and £210)
1/
The UK has signed up to the International Health Regulations (IHA) 2005. These therefore create binding international legal obligations on the UK.
The IHA explicitly prevent charging for travellers' quarantine or medical examinations.
On 13 May 2020 the rules were relaxed slightly so that people not from the same household could meet outside the home for exercise or open air recreation
So you could 'recreate' with someone outside, but not inside
This is very troubling footage. These are not detainees. I am dubious that there is a legal basis for the police using force. There is a power under the self-isolation regulations to use reasonable force to return somebody to the place they are supposed to be isolating ... /1
but as far as I know, people at barracks weren’t given formal notifications to self isolate (I hear people tested but not given results/ a letter sent by ‘Ready Homes’ telling them to self-isolate prob isn’t formal notification) and therefore there was no power of enforcement /2
In any case, I can’t see how the police can have known who was legally required to self isolate and who was not. We do not know the full facts but it is plausible the police have unlawfully assaulted this man
Some good news for those following scandalous conditions for asylum seekers at Napier Barracks. In its first judgment the High Court ordered a vulnerable asylum seeker to be transferred out in 24 hrs. @DoughtyStreet’s @leoniehirst acting for @dpg_law, I act in 2 linked cases
Really excellent hard work from the @dpg_law team @SueWillman@EmilySoothill and my brilliant colleague @leoniehirst. The four cases of vulnerable asylum seekers held in atrocious, dangerous conditions we act for will be heard at a permission hearing in 2 weeks.
The judgment was given orally but will he up I imagine quite soon. Some important ‘prima facie’ (preliminary) findings on the truly atrocious conditions on the site and confirmation that asylum seekers can lawfully be moved out under the self-isolation regulations.
As trailed by Home Secretary last week there is now a fixed penalty notice of £800 (or £400 if you pay within 14 days) for participating in an gathering of over 15 people in a private residence
Fixed Penalty Notices double for each subsequent “large gathering offence” up to £6,400
Compare:
- Ordinary fixed penalty notice is £200 or £100 if paid in 14 days
- Holding or being involved in the holding of a gathering of over 30 people is £10,000