Today, at 1pm, it will be exactly a year since the first lockdown law, the most significant restriction on our liberties in peacetime, came into force.
Laid before parliament an hour and a half later, debated and voted on many weeks later
‘Muslim media chief’ - Talk about divisive. @miqdaad is in my experience a man of integrity. He rightly calls out islamophobia in the press including @JewishChron. He made a mistake which he apologised for. /1
This sounds like a very important ruling. The first successful court challenge against the lockdown regulations, as far as I know. The rules in Scotland were different to England were communal worship has been allowed throughout the last two lockdowns bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotla…
Here is the official summary. Fascinating! Ties constitutionality to proportionality. Finds Scottish government had failed to show less restrictive measures would have achieved the public health aim judiciary.scot/home/sentences…
First thing to say: this is another completely new system.
We have had national restrictions, local restrictions by separate regulations, the first lot of Tiers (1-3), a second national lockdown, new Tiers (1-3+) then Tier 4 added, third national lockdown
Now we have… Steps.
So, instead of being 4 tiers, there are 3 “steps”.
Step 1 is the most severe (confusingly as Tier 1 was the least severe)
Steps work like the Tiers, in that they apply to specific areas.
But at the moment, all we know is that Step 1 applies to all of England from 29 March
As I have said repeatedly over recent weeks, the right to *peaceful* protest should be protected and every attempt to diminish it should be opposed - *peacefully*.
The bill which this protest is supposedly about won’t make a jot of difference to violent protest, which is already unlawful and unprotected by human rights law.
The bill is troubling because it could criminalise a wide range of *peaceful* protests.
I appreciate there has been a lot of confusion about what the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill is going to do.
Key to understand is police *already* have powers to impose conditions on protests if "necessary to prevent disorder, damage, disruption or intimidation".
Good thread.
Covid is almost the perfect example of where a public inquiry would be good for society:
- Hugely complex issue,
- politically charged so judicial approach an advantage
- a decade until the next (likely) pandemic so thorough process both possible and useful
- the idea that a public inquiry would be ‘too costly’ seems odd in this context where mistakes likely led to tens of thousands of lives lost *and* billions lost from economy
- Ultimately, the litmus test is whether the people who are saying “let’s move on and not rake over the coals” are the very people who are likely to be in the crosshairs from an inquiry.
- with power comes responsibility and scrutiny cannot be avoided forever