The Prime Minister has confirmed that "Step 3" restrictions will come into force, as expected, from Monday 17 May. Short summary in the thread below (which also explains the context).
What you won't find in the regulations is the "you can now hug" rule - that's because the recommendation against hugging has been part of social distancing guidance, not law.
But we are now all so hopelessly confused about the difference that I forgive you
What is really important is that I can from Monday update my thread on the indoor 'sex ban' - a real ban, illegal - for people who don't live together and aren't in a linked household, in place in some parts of the UK for well over a year!
You also won't find, in Step 3 Regulations, any mention of overnight stays.
This is because they fall within the 'rule of 6 inside' so that it doesn't matter why - or when - people are meeting inside, as long as not more than 6 not from same household/2 families/other exception
If you want to get really into the weeds of why this is being mentioned, it's because for a while in the summer last year overnight stays were banned, so I imagine the government is reminiscing about that period in saying they are now allowed
It's pretty simple (apart from all the exceptions)
🏘️Indoors: Rule of 6 (six people from any households) / two families / two families + their 2 linked households
🌳Outdoors (which includes private gardens): Up to 30 in a gathering
And indoor hospitality (restaurants, pubs etc) will reopen along with cinemas and lots of other places, as well as thousands of people being able to attend sporting events and some indoor performances
One thing that isn't clear is what exactly is going to happen to the bit of the Steps regulations which means you can only travel abroad with a 'reasonable excuse'. From the announcements last week it sounds like that is going so expect some amendments this week
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I deal with contempt of court cases fairly regularly (as it happens in the environmental protest context) and there are strong appeal rights from the High Court - you don't need permission and legal aid generally available. Supreme Court (v unusual procedure) has no clear...
... right of appeal. I am being a bit lazy by not looking up whether in certain circumstance lack of appeal right might be a breach of Article 6 ECHR (right to fair trial), I do recall reading somewhere there is no right of appeal in Art 6, but contempt interesting jurisdiction
Since posting this I have received many messages from people in similar positions - stuck in hotel quarantine after clear medical evidence given to the 'exemptions team' that they cannot safely be there. Can I encourage journalists/parliamentary committees to look at this issue?
I am concerned the 'exemptions team' are refusing many requests which they should not, in law, refuse - where there is compelling medical evidence that a person cannot safely be held in hotel quarantine because that would exacerbate a condition, they should never be refusing.
Now Turkey has been added to the “red list“ anyone who travels there has to hotel quarantine for 10 days upon return.
But in any case it would currently be illegal for fans to travel there for a football match as that wouldn’t be a ‘reasonable excuse’ bbc.co.uk/sport/football…
You have to have a ‘reasonable excuse’ to travel outside of the UK at present. That will change, I assume, for ‘green list’ counties and maybe ‘amber’ but won’t I imagine for red list legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2021/364/…
It is currently a reasonable excuse for elite sportspersons and coaches to travel abroad
I am happy to advise though you might also want to speak to someone with a better record than 23 unsuccessful pupillage applications and one successful.
Also, unless you are on of those unusual people who gets loads of offers the margin between success and failure is incredibly narrow. I’m not even sure I was the chambers I was successful at’s first choice.
Also, the chambers I am now at (Doughty Street) rejected me twice for pupillage without an interview 😊
I mentioned I was in court last Sat and Sun (and Mon) - this is what for.
I think this is the first successful legal challenge to placement in hotel quarantine involving a severely disabled child whose doctor said they couldn't safely be held at the hotel.
This is the fifth case so far I have been involved in relating to hotel quarantine and it is the most troubling so far.
It also identifies a number of issues which I think are features of the system rather than specific to this case
/2
The full facts are in the press release (child's identity anonymised).
Essentially:
The child has severe needs and their treating psychologist provided a report to the Department of Health explaining why their particular severe needs could not be met in hotel quarantine /3