(Which it actually isn’t as, in another act of flagrant dishonesty, the government announced lockdowns laws had effect three days before they actuality did.)
150 million people worldwide will go into extreme poverty - that is, risk of starvation - because of the destruction of the economy caused by restricting supply chains. In the last pandemics - 57 & 69 - the economy grew. That isn’t caused by the pandemic.
This is a gross abuse of power. There is no power in s 45C of the Public Order Act (which provides for *domestic* regulations) to prevent *anyone* from leaving the country. Section 45B applies directly to international travel and only restricts *entry*.
Public HEALTH Act. Sorry
Which is another consideration of statutory interpretation, Parliament being presumed (when amending the Public HEALTH Act in 2008) to pass law in conformity with its international obligations.
There is no reliable evidence for the efficacy of the invented measure of ‘social distancing’. There cannot be: it was not contemplated by any pandemic plan before last year before it was plucked from nowhere and imposed (effectively) without debate or even legislation.
But imposed it was through other - statutory - measures such as licensing laws.
No evidence of efficacy. No precedent. No debate.
Yet to question it is to meet with howls of outrage from the baying mob.
I continue to be flabbergasted by the unthinking acceptance of such impositions of the state without evidential or logical justification-let alone any assessment of their proportionality-by supposedly learned people. Including Her Majesty's Counsel and judiciary.
Imagine supporting the dismantling of freedom, democracy and prosperity ‘to save granny’ and wishing old people dead because they vote the wrong way and hating them this much?
‘...the Will of the fucking dead.’
What an 18 year old brings in the length of time for which they will be affected by laws, a 80 year old brings in wisdom and experience.
The lazy thinking and ignorance and lack of understanding of evidence, historical precedent and proportionality in this article is something to behold. thetimes.co.uk/article/were-w…
The man remarks that Ferguson copied China while oblivious to the fact that he has just relied - without any analysis or even explanation (‘it is clear that’) on his modelling projections. Projections that don’t stand up to the slightest scrutiny.
He does not even consider whether the original measures were proportionate, simply making the facile assumption that they were because Ferguson said hundreds of thousands would die.
This appears to be a thinly veiled consultation for a digital ID system that would at least be regulated by government. It is no coincidence that it has been rushed out while the government prepares digital vaccine passports.
And yes, of course different organisations have information about your activities: banks, TFL, etc. But that’s the point. They are *different* organisations; and that information may only be accessed by the authorities - separately - with a warrant.
This suggestion is for one identification document that - for the pathetic benefit of ‘convenience’ (or saving a v small amount of time) - will contain all the above ‘attributes’.
What studies have been commissioned about this? Those, in particular, reviewing the long-term risks to those who have worn masks over prolonged periods in the past.
Is the answer that none were commissioned and those that might have been published were not considered?
I think we can be quietly confident that, so far as the government is concerned, that is indeed the answer.
Irrespective of evidence of the efficacy of masks in clinical settings and (more importantly) within the community, no requirement to wear masks can be proportionate or ethical if it has not weighed their potential benefit against their risk of harm.