Sorry, have deleted my tweets about Matt Hancock as I got the dates wrong. Hancock says in his book "nothing happened between us until May [2021], after legal restrictions had ended".
The indoor gatherings restrictions on 2 or more people meeting ended on 14th May 2021 (when Step 3 was introduced). Until then I think that an affair conducted indoors would have been illegal
Note that Hancock is quite vague about the date the affair began - it was exposed on 25th June in The Sun, he says it began in "May".
What happens when the government is out of control? Parliament steps in. What happens when Parliament goes AWOL? The courts step in. What happens if they don’t? #EmergencyState
Interesting to see that Kayne West has been suspended for "incitement to violence" for, as far as I understand, posting an image of a Star of David and swastika intertwined. In UK law I doubt that that would amount to threatening violence - I imagine it would fall within...
... other offences e.g. menacing/grossly offensive message on a public communications network under s.127 of the Communications Act 2003. I don't know about US law but I am guessing that with strong 1st Amendment protections it may not be incitement to violence there either...
... And if I am right about that doesn't this show the muddle that Twitter is getting itself into in setting such a high bar (incitement to violence) for suspending/banning accounts? If you apply that strictly Kanye would still be on Twitter but I think the majority...
I find this new judgment about ministers using private communications for public business difficult to understand on a principle basis. Isn't the point of public records that the public has a record of govt business? judiciary.uk/wp-content/upl…
I do understand a distinction in public law between purely internal policies (e.g. "don't leave the windows open when you leave the office") and public-facing policies. I just don't understand how these policies are internal when they are about preserving records *for the public*
"not about individual cases or the rights of an individual. They are directed to ministers and civil servants, and not to the public." - but why? They are intended *for the benefit of the public*. Isn't a point of public law to enforce the public interest in good administration?
What is happening China demonstrates the societal perils of possibly the most extreme COVID-19 #EmergencyState worldwide - with no obvious end point and hugely intrusive restrictions, quarantine and surveillance.
As I describe in my book, China's lockdowns were the model for the rest of the world, praised in the first months of the pandemic by e.g. the WHO and even the Pope. Though in fact they tended to be more extreme, reflecting the authoritarian nature of the Chinese govt.
China has used e.g. mass surveillance, enforced quarantine of individuals in camps, extreme enforcement. But the policy has been so successful in suppressing the virus that the govt (by its own logic) is now stuck in a perpetual state of ongoing restrictions.
It's back!
For various very important technical reasons (I didn't renew my Google subscription) my table of COVID regulations went offline.
I have put it back up on a new link
I think still the only easy+free way of finding out what laws applied when docs.google.com/document/d/1dn…
It now also has an extra column which shows when each regulation was debated and links to Hansard docs.google.com/document/d/1dn…
This is interesting on whether Scotland is entitled to a right to self-determination in international law - answer: no
I also think it's good that the Supreme Court has opened the door to more references on bills before they have been introduced. Generally, though it adds to the SC's case load, I like the idea of references which will achieve legal certainty earlier in the legislative process...