that can be computer modelled
is not the Way…
Talk Radio September 9th 2020 – ‘I met the heads of the police, and they were really clear, you’ve got to have simpler, more straightforward rules, and fines, so that when people break them we can easily sort them out.’
– ‘Secretary for Health’ confirms that Britain is now a Police State.
Teigue-the-Fool curtailed his game of sand tennis, and started to dance around the House singing, ‘Nice one Matty, nice one son, nice one Matty, let’s have another one!’
‘Shaaaat Aaaaap!’ Yelled Big Bee, to no avail.
‘In the Navy… you can put yourself at ease… In the Navy… no need to pull up trees… In the Navy… we bring Corporations to their knees… In the Navy… In the Navy… In the Navy…’
“We don’t need a vaccine to get out of it. We don’t. I am sorry… but we don’t need a vaccine. It is nice to have it in case this virus should come back again and if we then have a vaccine that will be nice. Do we need it right now? No. We don’t need a vaccine because we see already herd immunity developing and in two or three weeks, we have herd immunity and it is over… “
– Dr Knut Wittkowski – Former head of Biostatistics Epidemiology & Research Design. Rockefeller University
HUMAN RIGHTS AND VACCINATION
ARTICLE 6 – CONSENT
1. Any preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention is only to be carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information. The consent should, where appropriate, be express and may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without disadvantage or prejudice.
– United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation
“Do the right thing!” said Teigue-the-Fool, and started to dance around the throne room…
“Do the right thing… Do the right thing… Just say, ‘No!'”
A letter dated 30th April 2020 from London lawyers Wedlake Bell to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Matt Hancock MP) states that in the absence of a satisfactory response by 4pm on 7th May 2020 then judicial review proceedings will be taken by their client, Simon Dolan (a UK businessman) to direct that all Covid 19 restrictions are terminated, the letter does allow for the phased lifting of certain provisions if deemed appropriate.
The lawyers letter highlights the legal provisions which came into force on 26th April 2020 :
• Requires many premises to close with restrictions on the opening of others;
• Prevents any person from remaining outside the place where they live without a ‘reasonable excuse’;
• Restricts any gathering of more than two people outside the same household except under exceptions including that it is ‘essential’ for work purposes;
• Creates offences of failing to abide by regulations and provides for enforcement including fixed penalty notices and prosecution of offences;
• Provides that the Regulations expire six months after the date on which they came into force and are subject to review every 21 days. Parliament has no right to scrutinise the regulations until they expire in 6 months; the decision of the Secretary of State is absolute and can only be challenged through Judicial Review.
• The letter also notes “that the above measures are some of the most extreme restrictions imposed on fundamental freedoms in the modern era. They confine every person in England to their homes save for limited purposes permitted by the state. Parents may not see their children or grandparents their grandchildren. Worshipers may not attend their services or children their schools. Businesses must close, thousands of them will fail and millions of people will lose their jobs. And all political meetings and public demonstrations are, without exception, proscribed by law.”
The legal action being taken accuses the government of the following:
• That the restrictions taken by the government are ultra vires of the powers provided to them by the Public Health (Control of Diseases) Act 1984. This Act has been relied upon by the government to provide them with the delegated powers to undertake the current restrictions. The action notes that this Act only applies to action by a public body against an individual or group of persons and NOT against the whole country and with restrictions on all but a defined class of businesses.
• That the government failed to consider the uncertainty of the scientific evidence on the effectiveness of the restrictions undertaken or the effect that these restrictions would have on public health, including deaths, particularly from untreated or undiscovered cancer, heart disease, mental health and incidences of domestic violence.
• That the government failed to consider the economic effect of the restrictions relative to the economic effect of other less restrictive measures to limit the spread of the virus; with predictions showing that the UK economy could be damaged by £800 billion in 10 years. Further impacting health and well being from poverty and unemployment and having a devastating impact on towns and cities following the closure of numerous small businesses.
• That the government failed to consider the medium and long-term consequences of the measures taken and that the imposed restrictions were not proportionate. • That the restrictions except for a limited period and subject to regular review that prevents gatherings of more than 100 people are against the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
• That the five government tests that need to be satisfied before the restrictions are removed take no account of the other health and economic impacts that the current restrictions may or are having.
• That the restrictions were passed under the emergency powers provided by the Public Health (Control of Diseases) Act 1984 and that this requires that they are laid before and given positive resolutions before both Houses of Parliament within 28 days or they cease to have effect (this doesn’t include time that Parliament is prorogued, dissolved or adjourned). The action notes that this time of 28 days is excessive in relation to the action undertaken by the government and that other Acts removing civil liberties only allow for restrictions to be imposed for 30 days and require a positive resolution by Parliament within 7 days (including the time where Parliament is not sitting).
• Other issues noted within the action are: Disproportionate breach of Convention rights, deprivation of liberty (Article 5), impact on maintenance of family relationships (Article 8), right to worship (Article 9), restriction on political rights (Article 11) particularly given limited Parliamentary scrutiny, disproportionate discrimination given isolation on those with mental health issues, those suffering domestic violence, poorer and disabled children (Article 14), closure of businesses will reduce their goodwill (engages Article 1), denial of basic education of children (engaging Article 2 of Protocol 1)
• The letter also has questions over data and scientific evidence used to support the governments opinion along with the modelling of the spread undertaken. In particular, that evidence of modelling infection and mortality rates from new illnesses is notoriously uncertain; and that Prof Neil Ferguson, the epidemiologist whose paper was key to the government’s imposition of the regulations, himself predicted up to 138,000 deaths from human BSE a disease that has killed around 150 people to date; and who has also been criticised for his modelling of the foot and mouth crisis in 2001. Moreover, Carl Heneghan, director of the centre for evidence-based medicine at Oxford University, has suggested that the ‘peak’ of infections may have been as early as 18th March, days before the start of the ‘lockdown’.
• That the regulations were imposed: “as part of an express policy that not only fails to consider the potential effectiveness of less restrictive measures but which (through the First Secretary’s tests) expressly fails to balance the harms they may redress against the harms they cause. They impose unprecedented and exceptionally grave restrictions on every area of society and on almost all means of human interaction. And they are likely to devastate the livelihoods of millions and to cause great harm to individuals and to society”
“Hold-ups… are on the up,” pronounced Teigue-the-Fool, and flung aside the Daily Comet, “which is, ahem, dare I say it, hardly surprising, Sire.”
“Hardly surprising! Hardly surprising,” blustered Big Bee, “hold-ups are a worrying and totally unforseen consequence of our valiant offensive against a genocidal virus!” he finished, with some aplomb.
“Genocidal, I can grant you, but virus?”
“Don’t you have a shed to tidy, that’s what normal people do?”
“And what of the customer?”Chided Teigue.
“Oh, what of the customer?”
“Are they no longer always right?”
“Not when they may be riddled with disease they’re not!”
“Covid. Outcast. Unclean! You mean?”
“Well, yes, something like that.”
“Straight from the Walrus’s mouth, as it were,” sang Teigue.
She emerged from the shop just in time to see her young son playing on the pavement directly in the path of a grey, gaunt man who strode along like an automated derelict.
Her heart quailed.
Then she leapt forward, grabbed her son by the arm and pulled him from harm’s way…
The man strode by without turning his head. As his back moved away from her, she hissed at it, ‘Be gone! You ought to be ashamed!’
The grey man’s stride continued, unfaltering as clockwork, but to himself he muttered, ‘Ashamed? Ashamed?’
His face contorted into a grimace, ‘Covid! Outcast! Unclean!’
– Count Jack Black (apologies, Stephen Donaldson)
Big Bee hunkered over his desk with his head in his hands.
Teigue-the-Fool was running amok…
“In what sense can we be regarded as a free society when we have a litany of regulations governing our every move?”
Much more of this and Big Bee would scream, “We are a free society because I say we are a free society,” he said.
“Ah, I see,” said Teigue-the-Fool, “you are using the word ‘free’ in the same way that the American Administration uses the word ‘peace’.”
“Huh?” Said Big Bee.
“To mean the exact opposite of its dictionary definition.”
“I’m not listening,” said Big Bee and clamped his hands over his ears.
“But the people have questions, Sire,” said Teigue-the-Fool and removed Big Bee’s hands from his ears.
“What kind of questions?” asked Big Bee, dejectedly.
“What kind of ‘virus’ discriminates between small and corporate businesses?”
Big Bee said nothing.
“What kind of ‘virus’ discriminates between the man in the street and the world’s elite athletes?”
Big Bee said nothing.
“What kind of ‘virus’ discriminates between ‘peaceful protestors’ and ‘riotous children’?”
Big Bee’s silence had become deafening.
“The word on the street, Sire, is that the virus is man-made.”
Big Bee exploded.
“THE VIRUS IS NOT MAN MADE!”
“No Sire,” said Teigue-the-Fool, “just manipulated.”