Important new @HumanRightsCtte report on the government bill which is going to significantly limit the right to protest. I agree the but allowing police to prevent ‘noisy protests’ happening has to go
This really is a power grab by the government against inconvenient protests. It’s anti-democratic. Parliamentarians from all parties should rise up against it
A year ago I would have said this is an unnecessary gloss on the Human Rights Act. However, in a year when protest has been effectively banned by home office and police policy, I am in favour of an explicit right to protest, and duty to facilitate it, being brought into law
The @ReclaimTS case, and the protest ban policy of the Met Police which it exposes, shows how important a duty to facilitate peaceful protest could be crowdjustice.com/case/defending…
Worth noting that @SeethingMead proposed a statutory guarantee of the right to protest in his book over a decade ago. Now works with the @HumanRightsCtte
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Lord Sumption makes a convincing argument in the new Law Quarterly Review that Dolan was wrongly decided and use of the Public Health Act to impose lockdowns was contrary to the principle of legality
I'm getting a lot of questions about rules for organising weddings 💒
Obviously a big worry for people as could end up with a £10,000 fixed penalty notice if they don't follow rules (including law and even guidance).
What questions do you have about covid rules and weddings?
OK, so the problem, I think, isn't with people organising weddings - it's that the law is confusing. And I'm afraid I might not be able to make it entirely clear. Because it's not.
The starting point is anyone who "hold[s], or [is] involved in the holding of, a relevant gathering" can get a £10,000 fixed penalty notice
A relevant gathering is a gathering of more than 30 people where no exception applies
This would raise interesting issues if it went to court. A long-standing teacher at an Orthodox Jewish studies college lost her post because she qualified as a female rabbi (still not permitted by most of the Orthodox world).
Sounds like sex discrimination as I assume she wouldn't have lost her post if she was a man who qualified as a rabbi. They would argue, I imagine, that any individual who breached Orthodox 'red lines' would not be able to teach. But if those red lines only exist for women...
I know there are exemptions for religious institutions in the Equality Act 2010. But would they apply in this case?
Very interesting development. If compulsory vaccination to work in the front line was going to happen anywhere first, it was going to be the care home sector.
Raises difficult, complicated issues - though certainly not clear it would be illegal bbc.co.uk/news/uk-574922…
The first big question is what happens to people who can't be vaccinated for medical reasons - the article suggests some will be redeployed off the front line, I would imagine that this would have to happen (rather than sacking) for that group.
Second big question is whether vaccination is something which can reasonably be a requirement as part of an employment contract. It's a medical procedure, even if it is a relatively benign one (that is, very low risk of side effect and obvious positive impact).