One of the most common responses to critique of the #OnlineSafetyBill is 'we need something in place to protect children'. Here's brief look at some of the legislation & framework in place:
▶️ The Communications Act (2003)
▶️ The Malicious Communications Act (1988)
(contd.)
Legal responsibility for website hosts & social media:
▶️ The Defamation Act (2013)
▶️ Section 103 of the Digital Economy Act (2017)
▶️ The ICO Children's Code (or Age Appropriate Design Code)
▶️ Video-sharing Platform (VSP) regulation - to protect users from harmful content
Keeping children safe from online abuse:
▶️ The ITU (International Telecommunication Union) framework supporting effective online protection measures.
▶️ The UK Council for Internet Safety (UKCIS) framework
▶️ Protection of Children Act (1978)
▶️ Part 11 of the Criminal Justice Act (1988)
▶️ Section 33 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act (2015)
▶️ Section 67 of the Serious Crime Act (2015)
▶️ Sexual Offences Act (2003)
▶️ Serious Crimes Act (2015)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, South Georgia contained no sufficient or reliable data to include from FCDO advice.
There are *more countries restriction free* than there are continuing to impose measures, i.e. COVID-status, testing, recovery, & that looks set to continue.
This forms an important part of our argument as to why the #NHS COVID Pass scheme must rapidly wind down & close.
Over one year on & now knowing that @pfizer didn’t test their product on stopping transmission of #SARSCoV2, would you care to correct your ‘thoughts’ Adam, or shall we do the honours.
Did it ever occur to Mr. Wagner that the IHR received its biggest update in 2005, published in 2007, as well as Yellow Fever being a *completely different* virus as compared to #SARSCoV2, where it’s certification is only used in *specific countries* & has a CFR of 20-50%
On 22nd Jan, @RachaelMaskell asked @maggie_erewash if an assessment was made re: risk of vaccinated people being infectious at venues requiring the domestic #NHS COVID Pass.
Now that we know @pfizer didn't test re: transmission, we invite you to read Ms. Throup's response ⤵️
Assuming that @MHRAgovuk@DHSCgovuk had critical data, or lack thereof, on transmission since procurement, what Ms. Throup said about @pfizer jab reducing transmission by 50% is a LIE.
The Govt also admit their uncertainty surrounding jabs & transmission with #Omicron.
In summary, Ms. Throup claimed certification would 'reduce risk' in settings where the COVID Pass was required but then caveated explaining they wouldn't 'eliminate the possibility' of infectious people attending or transmitting.
🚨 The fifteenth & final report on non-devolved provisions of the Coronavirus Act (2020) has been published.
Since the last report, all temporary, non-devolved provisions in the Act have now expired or been
repealed. Apart from some 'permanent provisions' under the Act...contd.
Although the majority of provisions have expired, specific powers remain in force under the Act & new primary legislation is required in order to repeal them.
We imagine this will be completed after the winter season has ended, i.e. by 31st March 2023.
(i.) Section 11 relating to continued indemnity cover for 'NHS clinical negligence'. Make of that what you will.
(ii.) Section 63, yet again the Govt are retaining these powers to make further provisions, if necessary, within the Act.
But some 'permanent provisions' may not expire as expected... (contd.)
While three of the provisions & a part of the fourth (s.55b) were repealed, there's mention of provisions remaining 'necessary' to support 'pandemic recovery' & the Govt Living with COVID plan.
The 'permanent provision' of s.63 - 'power to make supplementary provisions' & it's permanent fixture by virtue of s.89 of the Act, raised our eyebrows 👀
'Retroactively' to our interpretation is the Govt saying that they don't want to let go of this particular power.