No time for fence sitting reflection on what is starkly obvious. Imprisonment in student halls this weekend is illegal. It is not permitted under any Coronavirus regulations, (even if such a regulation were considered lawful). 1/4
It is fundamental breach of human rights and criminal. It is fundamental breach of contract. Students may respond by accepting the tearing up of their uni contract, go home and sue the uni for damages. 2/4
They should record who is attempting to imprison them. Names and details, badge numbers, employers and company vehicles. Demand specific legal basis allegedly relied on. Then go home. 3/4
@JuliaHB1@MichaelYeadon3 You might ask every single member of SAGE should be asking them why they are not ringing the alarm bell about the likely huge exaggeration of ‘cases’.
SAGE members seek collective protection under the cloak of zoom committees, ... 1/8
....publishing unattributed “consensus statements” and by significant disclaimers throughout all reports. Timid ref to uncertainty about confidence in test results and false positives is unacceptable when they know those test results are used to justify govt policy...2/8
It is abrogation of personal responsibility by each and every member of SAGE. They must find the courage to answer their conscience and do so now. If they do not, they should not be surprised to learn they may need to answer to the public in civil... 3/8
... are required to refuse entry if have reason to believe details are inaccurate.
The premises may be prosecuted, and will no doubt be threatened, if they don't take steps to comply.
However, Spartacus Smith is not subject to sanction for giving a false name. 2/3
The regs are also have the ominous use of a Schedule in 2 Parts.
Get ready for the long list of premises in Part 2 (hairdressers for example) to be moved up to Part 1.
Get ready for another hit to the economy and health as people stay at home.
Every set of Coronavirus regulations opens with a statement that they are a proportionate “response to the serious and imminent threat to public health which is posed by the incidence and spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in England”.
But this has been dangerous shorthand. It misses out key words from Section 45(C) of the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 from where the regulations take their power.
Section 45(C) refers to “incidence or spread of infection or contamination” from the virus.
So presence of the virus is not enough. The response must be to “infection or contamination”
If @MichaelYeadon3 and @carlheneghan are correct, and the testing to date has been revealing presence/traces of the virus that is not properly within the meaning of an infection...
The govt has published none on the legislation site and referred to none on its Coronavirus webpages.
It is purely "guidance". there is no obligation whatsoever on the Muslim community or NW of England to obey Mr Hancock. 1/4
There is a change of language to tell the public these are ‘rules‘. If you want to be in Mr Hancock’s club, fine, but there is no obligation to join or to to pay his membership fee of removing, in his words on Talk Radio, "what life is worth living for". 2/4
The govt has told the Courts in defence of lockdown that it only made a ‘request’ to schools to close last March, but did not ‘direct’ them to do so. The govt is being no less duplicitous with the public now.
Media should be told. They should be asking about this. 3/4