Share this page!

Adam Wagner Profile picture
Twitter logo
23 Jun, 4 tweets, 2 min read
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

It's behind a paywall so I can't post a direct link sweetandmaxwell.co.uk/Product/Academ…
I'll post this though

He may be right. I wonder if time will tell? Hard to see this issue going back in front of the Supreme Court but maybe
Oh and this
HT @SpinningHugo

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
　

Keep Current with Adam Wagner

Adam Wagner Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @AdamWagner1

Adam Wagner Profile picture
25 Jun
I appreciate some will see the Hancock story as a private affair - but there is an important question of whether the Health Secretary broke his own lockdown laws

As I explain 👇🏼, private indoor meetings between people not living together were unlawful for most of the past year
The Sun photo was apparently taken on 3 May, when lockdown was in Step 2.

Gatherings of 2 or more indoors were illegal except for permitted purposes

One purpose was "work" which would cover being together at work but arguably not for this purpose

Were they meeting up before this? The Sun suggests they were.

If they were at work, they might argue this fell within the work exception but I think - especially for Health Secretary - that's not a good argument.

If they went elsewhere to meet up, that would clearly be illegal
Read 6 tweets
Adam Wagner Profile picture
23 Jun
🚨⚽️Amendment to travel regulations in force yesterday

The Health Protection (Coronavirus, International Travel and Operator Liability) (England) (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 2021

People with a "Euro 2020 invite" avoid self-isolation/hotel quarantine
legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2021/731/…
Remember this story? That is what this is about

theguardian.com/football/2021/…
Basically, anyone who falls within these categories is exempt from both the requirement to self-isolate and the hotel quarantine rules
Read 13 tweets
Adam Wagner Profile picture
22 Jun
I am popping up on #TheMoralMaze tomorrow. Listen to @BBCRadio4 from 1pm
Sorry, it’s on at 8 this evening not 1 bbc.co.uk/programmes/m00…
This is the topic
Read 5 tweets
Adam Wagner Profile picture
22 Jun
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
Here is the full report publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt5802/jtse…
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
Read 6 tweets
Adam Wagner Profile picture
16 Jun
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

legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2021/364/… Image
Read 20 tweets
Adam Wagner Profile picture
16 Jun
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?

(equalityhumanrights.com/en/advice-and-…)

@JasonBraier knows more than I ImageImage
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

Like this author's thread?

Get emails when @AdamWagner1 has new unrolls!

Check out other threads from @AdamWagner1!

Read all threads by @AdamWagner1

:(