The explanatory memorandum is as useful very useful
Now just two categories of country - "Rest of the world" and "red list" (hotel quarantine)
Important details on how vaccinated travellers can prove their vaccinated status through NHS Covid Pass and international equivalents
Also for the first time in the international travel context includes in those who cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons
Need through the NHS Covid Pass to show a "medical practitioner has advised that they should not be vaccinated for clinical reasons"
This is what the "eligible traveller" exception (which includes those under 18) means - doesn't count for red list arrivals, who still have to hotel quarantine
This is the justification for the changes - vaccinated travellers are safer and reduce risk of transmission by 50-80%
Also, for those applying for medical exemptions from hotel quarantine, new bit on what evidence they need from a medical practitioner
Sorry, should also have said that people who do not fall within the "eligible traveller" category from "rest of world" countries will still need to self-isolate for 10 days or from day 5 if they test negative from then
Effect of these changes is anyone coming from a non-red list country who is not vaccinated will now have to self-isolate, whereas before if you came from Green List and weren't vaccinated you wouldn't have to self-isolate.
So greatly increases the importance of vaccination status
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
This is a highly illiberal measure. Preventing people exercising their free-speech rights in advance because they are ‘disruptive’ is fraught with risk for a democratic society. bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politi…
It is understandable that in the heat of the moment people want to “crackdown” on disruptive protests, but protests are by definition disruptive. This law would, I assume, authorise the detention of a protester to prevent them attending a protest. That is illiberal.
This government is already attempting to pass laws which criminalise “noisy” protests. Our law is already finally balanced to protect free-speech and ensure police have powers to prevent illegal conduct arising from protest. These new laws tip the balance in the wrong direction.
I hesitate to try and analyse this at all, but I do think it is important that the Met Police Officer, Cousins, fraudulently used *Covid laws* as the means of abducting Sarah Everard. I imagine (though this is speculation) that he did so because he knew they were so wide...
... and poorly understood by the general public that he could convince both Sarah and any witnesses (who apparently saw the fake arrest and assumed she had "done something wrong") that they applied even though Sarah was doing absolutely nothing wrong, walking alone...
Agree this is an interesting case which shows in practice how difficult it now is for a religious organisation to discriminate against homosexual people - the direction of travel in the past decade's case law has been clear
This is an important para - the wider point (which the European Court of Human Rights has been making for years) is that it's difficult to imagine any justified discrimination against homosexuals even where religious doctrine authorises it
The proposals were negotiated and approved by the EHRC, as far as I am aware, so whilst Momentum may disagree with them, they cannot be said to be a flawed interpretation of the report
Key:
- EHRC issued an unlawful act notice to Labour and made legally binding recommendations
- Labour produced an action plan which EHRC then approved (labour.org.uk/wp-content/upl…)
- EHRC will to monitor and can use enforcement powers if Labour doesn't implement... 1/2