https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/oct/13/boris-johnson-covid-laws-rights-decree-two-years-democracy
Boris Johnson’s Covid laws took away our rights with flick of a pen.
Don’t let that happen again
Adam Wagner
Ministers were able to rule by decree for more than two years. That’s
not true democracy and it remains a risk in the future
Boris Johnson addressing the nation from 10 Downing Street as he placed
the UK on lockdown.
Boris Johnson addressing the nation from 10 Downing Street as he placed
the UK under lockdown in March 2020. Photograph: PA
Thu 13 Oct 2022 05.07 EDT
730
It is almost three years since the first case of a novel coronavirus was >identified in Wuhan, China.
It’s just over two and a half years since Boris Johnson gave us a “very >simple instruction”, that we “must stay at home”, followed – three days
later – by a law that for the first time in our history would impose a >24-hour curfew on almost the entire population. The years, months, weeks
and days since have been so relentless – and at times almost beyond
belief – that it is difficult to begin to process them. Many of us have >experienced personal bereavement, and everyone has been touched in some way.
But as tempting as it is to move on, to focus on other important issues >vexing our society, there are some aspects of the past three years we
must face up to.
Advertisement
There are a hundred lenses through which to view this important period
in modern history, but as a barrister I have looked at the more than 100
laws that placed England in lockdown, imposed hotel quarantine,
international travel restrictions, self-isolation, face coverings and >business closures.
These were probably the strangest and most extraordinary laws in
England’s history, imposing previously unimaginable restrictions on our >social lives, bringing into the realm of the criminal law areas of life
– where we could worship, when we could leave home, even who we could
hug – that had previously been purely a matter of personal choice.
By early 2020, the Johnson government already had form for seeing
democracy as a gadfly to be swatted away, having tried, and failed –
thanks to the supreme court – to shut down parliament for weeks to ram >through a Brexit deal. When the pandemic hit, it is no surprise that it
took the same approach to involving parliament in the most consequential >decisions and laws in living memory.
The Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 allowed for ministers to >enact the coronavirus regulations with almost no parliamentary scrutiny.
Of 109 lockdown laws, only eight were considered by parliament before
coming into force, usually only a day before. The rest became law
(literally) as soon as Matt Hancock, the then health secretary, put his >signature at the bottom of the page.
Finally, this reckless government faces a reckoning for Covid deaths in
care homes
Charlie Williams
Read more
I am not suggesting that emergency law-making would ever be
straightforward and neat, following all the processes of ordinary >legislation. During public emergencies, events move swiftly and
mercilessly. But it did not have to be like this.
Advertisement
Also troubling was the constant refrain that the government was
“following the science”, by which it meant its scientific advisory
group, Sage. But decisions were ultimately taken in the extremely
powerful but opaque Covid-19 cabinet committees, presided over by four >ministers – Boris Johnson, Rishi Sunak, Matt Hancock and Michael Gove.
No minutes were released and no explanation offered of how decisions
were made. This was the most powerful government committee since the
second world war, but received no scrutiny. Important political
decisions need to be understood, scrutinised and tested. These hardly were.
We still live in the state that permitted ministers to rule by decree
for more than two years, and where basic freedoms were removed without >democratic scrutiny or accountability. In 2008, the Public Health and >Wellbeing Act was amended to include vast powers for ministers to use in
the case of a public health emergency. And because ministers would have
the power to impose laws without parliament having to review them for
four weeks (or sometimes longer), they could, as one prescient member of
the House of Lords put it during the brief 2008 debate, “at the stroke
of a pen … limit and constrain the daily lives and freedoms of citizens”.
Parliament, meanwhile, allowed itself to play the role of a 1,400-person >rubber stamp. The police, tasked with enforcing the ever-growing mass of >legislation, often being changed more than once a week, floundered
between excessive and unjustified intrusions into our private lives, or
– as was initially the case with the Partygate investigation –
attempting to stay out of the fray altogether. The courts, for their
part, also played a limited role, ruling repeatedly that pandemic policy
– even when it interfered with fundamental rights – was a matter for >government and parliament, not judges.
Why does this matter now? Because the pandemic – and the ease with which >ancient freedoms such as the right to protest, to worship, to see our >families, were removed essentially by decisions of a tiny group of
ministers – should be a wake-up call. It is only a matter of time before
a new crisis will arise – either connected to Covid-19, to another virus
or to another kind of emergency altogether.
We must face up to the fact that we are not well protected from a
government if it wanted to use a state of emergency to corrode our
freedoms. We have no written constitution, meaning it is more difficult
for people to claim their rights, and – unlike in many other democracies
– the courts are reluctant to become embroiled in cases involving
fundamental rights that involve political controversy. Government power
has been on the rise for years, not least through the ever increasing
use of secondary legislation to set policy. And our public health
legislation remains extraordinarily broad.
CK Allen, scholar of the vast emergency powers built up during the
second world war, reminds us that freedom “is not easily gained, and,
once surrendered – however necessary the surrender may be – is even less >easily regained”. As tempting as it is to put this dark period in our
history behind us, it is only by looking back that we can, finally, hope
to move forward.
Adam Wagner is a barrister at Doughty Street Chambers. His debut book is >Emergency State: How We Lost Our Liberties in the Pandemic and Why it
Matters (Vintage)
Michael Ejercito wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/oct/13/boris-johnson-covid-laws-rights-decree-two-years-democracy
Boris Johnson’s Covid laws took away our rights with flick of a pen.
Don’t let that happen again
Adam Wagner
Ministers were able to rule by decree for more than two years. That’s
not true democracy and it remains a risk in the future
Boris Johnson addressing the nation from 10 Downing Street as he placed
the UK on lockdown.
Boris Johnson addressing the nation from 10 Downing Street as he placed
the UK under lockdown in March 2020. Photograph: PA
Thu 13 Oct 2022 05.07 EDT
730
It is almost three years since the first case of a novel coronavirus was
identified in Wuhan, China.
It’s just over two and a half years since Boris Johnson gave us a “very >> simple instruction”, that we “must stay at home”, followed – three days
later – by a law that for the first time in our history would impose a
24-hour curfew on almost the entire population. The years, months, weeks
and days since have been so relentless – and at times almost beyond
belief – that it is difficult to begin to process them. Many of us have
experienced personal bereavement, and everyone has been touched in some way. >>
But as tempting as it is to move on, to focus on other important issues
vexing our society, there are some aspects of the past three years we
must face up to.
Advertisement
There are a hundred lenses through which to view this important period
in modern history, but as a barrister I have looked at the more than 100
laws that placed England in lockdown, imposed hotel quarantine,
international travel restrictions, self-isolation, face coverings and
business closures.
These were probably the strangest and most extraordinary laws in
England’s history, imposing previously unimaginable restrictions on our
social lives, bringing into the realm of the criminal law areas of life
– where we could worship, when we could leave home, even who we could
hug – that had previously been purely a matter of personal choice.
By early 2020, the Johnson government already had form for seeing
democracy as a gadfly to be swatted away, having tried, and failed –
thanks to the supreme court – to shut down parliament for weeks to ram
through a Brexit deal. When the pandemic hit, it is no surprise that it
took the same approach to involving parliament in the most consequential
decisions and laws in living memory.
The Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 allowed for ministers to
enact the coronavirus regulations with almost no parliamentary scrutiny.
Of 109 lockdown laws, only eight were considered by parliament before
coming into force, usually only a day before. The rest became law
(literally) as soon as Matt Hancock, the then health secretary, put his
signature at the bottom of the page.
Finally, this reckless government faces a reckoning for Covid deaths in
care homes
Charlie Williams
Read more
I am not suggesting that emergency law-making would ever be
straightforward and neat, following all the processes of ordinary
legislation. During public emergencies, events move swiftly and
mercilessly. But it did not have to be like this.
Advertisement
Also troubling was the constant refrain that the government was
“following the science”, by which it meant its scientific advisory
group, Sage. But decisions were ultimately taken in the extremely
powerful but opaque Covid-19 cabinet committees, presided over by four
ministers – Boris Johnson, Rishi Sunak, Matt Hancock and Michael Gove.
No minutes were released and no explanation offered of how decisions
were made. This was the most powerful government committee since the
second world war, but received no scrutiny. Important political
decisions need to be understood, scrutinised and tested. These hardly were. >>
We still live in the state that permitted ministers to rule by decree
for more than two years, and where basic freedoms were removed without
democratic scrutiny or accountability. In 2008, the Public Health and
Wellbeing Act was amended to include vast powers for ministers to use in
the case of a public health emergency. And because ministers would have
the power to impose laws without parliament having to review them for
four weeks (or sometimes longer), they could, as one prescient member of
the House of Lords put it during the brief 2008 debate, “at the stroke
of a pen … limit and constrain the daily lives and freedoms of citizens”.
Parliament, meanwhile, allowed itself to play the role of a 1,400-person
rubber stamp. The police, tasked with enforcing the ever-growing mass of
legislation, often being changed more than once a week, floundered
between excessive and unjustified intrusions into our private lives, or
– as was initially the case with the Partygate investigation –
attempting to stay out of the fray altogether. The courts, for their
part, also played a limited role, ruling repeatedly that pandemic policy
– even when it interfered with fundamental rights – was a matter for
government and parliament, not judges.
Why does this matter now? Because the pandemic – and the ease with which >> ancient freedoms such as the right to protest, to worship, to see our
families, were removed essentially by decisions of a tiny group of
ministers – should be a wake-up call. It is only a matter of time before >> a new crisis will arise – either connected to Covid-19, to another virus >> or to another kind of emergency altogether.
We must face up to the fact that we are not well protected from a
government if it wanted to use a state of emergency to corrode our
freedoms. We have no written constitution, meaning it is more difficult
for people to claim their rights, and – unlike in many other democracies >> – the courts are reluctant to become embroiled in cases involving
fundamental rights that involve political controversy. Government power
has been on the rise for years, not least through the ever increasing
use of secondary legislation to set policy. And our public health
legislation remains extraordinarily broad.
CK Allen, scholar of the vast emergency powers built up during the
second world war, reminds us that freedom “is not easily gained, and,
once surrendered – however necessary the surrender may be – is even less >> easily regained”. As tempting as it is to put this dark period in our
history behind us, it is only by looking back that we can, finally, hope
to move forward.
Adam Wagner is a barrister at Doughty Street Chambers. His debut book is
Emergency State: How We Lost Our Liberties in the Pandemic and Why it
Matters (Vintage)
The only *healthy* way to stop the pandemic, thereby saving lives, in
the U.K. & elsewhere is by rapidly ( http://bit.ly/RapidTestCOVID-19
) finding out at any given moment, including even while on-line, who
among us are unwittingly contagious (i.e pre-symptomatic or
asymptomatic) in order to http://tinyurl.com/ConvinceItForward (John
15:12) for them to call their doctor and self-quarantine per their
doctor in hopes of stopping this pandemic. Thus, we're hoping for the
best while preparing for the worse-case scenario of the Alpha lineage mutations and others like the Omicron, Gamma, Beta, Epsilon, Iota,
Lambda, Mu & Delta lineage mutations combining via
slip-RNA-replication to form hybrids like
http://tinyurl.com/Deltamicron that may render current COVID vaccines/monoclonals/medicines/pills no longer effective.
Indeed, I am wonderfully hungry ( http://tinyurl.com/RapidOmicronTest
) and hope you, Michael, also have a healthy appetite too.
So how are you ?
HeartDoc Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
Michael Ejercito wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/oct/13/boris-johnson-covid-laws-rights-decree-two-years-democracy
Boris Johnson’s Covid laws took away our rights with flick of a pen.
Don’t let that happen again
Adam Wagner
Ministers were able to rule by decree for more than two years. That’s
not true democracy and it remains a risk in the future
Boris Johnson addressing the nation from 10 Downing Street as he placed
the UK on lockdown.
Boris Johnson addressing the nation from 10 Downing Street as he placed
the UK under lockdown in March 2020. Photograph: PA
Thu 13 Oct 2022 05.07 EDT
730
It is almost three years since the first case of a novel coronavirus was >>> identified in Wuhan, China.
It’s just over two and a half years since Boris Johnson gave us a “very
simple instruction”, that we “must stay at home”, followed – three days
later – by a law that for the first time in our history would impose a
24-hour curfew on almost the entire population. The years, months, weeks >>> and days since have been so relentless – and at times almost beyond
belief – that it is difficult to begin to process them. Many of us have
experienced personal bereavement, and everyone has been touched in some way.
But as tempting as it is to move on, to focus on other important issues
vexing our society, there are some aspects of the past three years we
must face up to.
Advertisement
There are a hundred lenses through which to view this important period
in modern history, but as a barrister I have looked at the more than 100 >>> laws that placed England in lockdown, imposed hotel quarantine,
international travel restrictions, self-isolation, face coverings and
business closures.
These were probably the strangest and most extraordinary laws in
England’s history, imposing previously unimaginable restrictions on our
social lives, bringing into the realm of the criminal law areas of life
– where we could worship, when we could leave home, even who we could
hug – that had previously been purely a matter of personal choice.
By early 2020, the Johnson government already had form for seeing
democracy as a gadfly to be swatted away, having tried, and failed –
thanks to the supreme court – to shut down parliament for weeks to ram
through a Brexit deal. When the pandemic hit, it is no surprise that it
took the same approach to involving parliament in the most consequential >>> decisions and laws in living memory.
The Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 allowed for ministers to >>> enact the coronavirus regulations with almost no parliamentary scrutiny. >>> Of 109 lockdown laws, only eight were considered by parliament before
coming into force, usually only a day before. The rest became law
(literally) as soon as Matt Hancock, the then health secretary, put his
signature at the bottom of the page.
Finally, this reckless government faces a reckoning for Covid deaths in
care homes
Charlie Williams
Read more
I am not suggesting that emergency law-making would ever be
straightforward and neat, following all the processes of ordinary
legislation. During public emergencies, events move swiftly and
mercilessly. But it did not have to be like this.
Advertisement
Also troubling was the constant refrain that the government was
“following the science”, by which it meant its scientific advisory
group, Sage. But decisions were ultimately taken in the extremely
powerful but opaque Covid-19 cabinet committees, presided over by four
ministers – Boris Johnson, Rishi Sunak, Matt Hancock and Michael Gove.
No minutes were released and no explanation offered of how decisions
were made. This was the most powerful government committee since the
second world war, but received no scrutiny. Important political
decisions need to be understood, scrutinised and tested. These hardly were. >>>
We still live in the state that permitted ministers to rule by decree
for more than two years, and where basic freedoms were removed without
democratic scrutiny or accountability. In 2008, the Public Health and
Wellbeing Act was amended to include vast powers for ministers to use in >>> the case of a public health emergency. And because ministers would have
the power to impose laws without parliament having to review them for
four weeks (or sometimes longer), they could, as one prescient member of >>> the House of Lords put it during the brief 2008 debate, “at the stroke
of a pen … limit and constrain the daily lives and freedoms of citizens”. >>>
Parliament, meanwhile, allowed itself to play the role of a 1,400-person >>> rubber stamp. The police, tasked with enforcing the ever-growing mass of >>> legislation, often being changed more than once a week, floundered
between excessive and unjustified intrusions into our private lives, or
– as was initially the case with the Partygate investigation –
attempting to stay out of the fray altogether. The courts, for their
part, also played a limited role, ruling repeatedly that pandemic policy >>> – even when it interfered with fundamental rights – was a matter for
government and parliament, not judges.
Why does this matter now? Because the pandemic – and the ease with which >>> ancient freedoms such as the right to protest, to worship, to see our
families, were removed essentially by decisions of a tiny group of
ministers – should be a wake-up call. It is only a matter of time before >>> a new crisis will arise – either connected to Covid-19, to another virus >>> or to another kind of emergency altogether.
We must face up to the fact that we are not well protected from a
government if it wanted to use a state of emergency to corrode our
freedoms. We have no written constitution, meaning it is more difficult
for people to claim their rights, and – unlike in many other democracies >>> – the courts are reluctant to become embroiled in cases involving
fundamental rights that involve political controversy. Government power
has been on the rise for years, not least through the ever increasing
use of secondary legislation to set policy. And our public health
legislation remains extraordinarily broad.
CK Allen, scholar of the vast emergency powers built up during the
second world war, reminds us that freedom “is not easily gained, and,
once surrendered – however necessary the surrender may be – is even less >>> easily regained”. As tempting as it is to put this dark period in our
history behind us, it is only by looking back that we can, finally, hope >>> to move forward.
Adam Wagner is a barrister at Doughty Street Chambers. His debut book is >>> Emergency State: How We Lost Our Liberties in the Pandemic and Why it
Matters (Vintage)
The only *healthy* way to stop the pandemic, thereby saving lives, in
the U.K. & elsewhere is by rapidly ( http://bit.ly/RapidTestCOVID-19
) finding out at any given moment, including even while on-line, who
among us are unwittingly contagious (i.e pre-symptomatic or
asymptomatic) in order to http://tinyurl.com/ConvinceItForward (John
15:12) for them to call their doctor and self-quarantine per their
doctor in hopes of stopping this pandemic. Thus, we're hoping for the
best while preparing for the worse-case scenario of the Alpha lineage
mutations and others like the Omicron, Gamma, Beta, Epsilon, Iota,
Lambda, Mu & Delta lineage mutations combining via
slip-RNA-replication to form hybrids like
http://tinyurl.com/Deltamicron that may render current COVID
vaccines/monoclonals/medicines/pills no longer effective.
Indeed, I am wonderfully hungry ( http://tinyurl.com/RapidOmicronTest
) and hope you, Michael, also have a healthy appetite too.
So how are you ?
I am wonderfully hungry!
HeartDoc Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
Subject: The LORD says "Blessed are you who hunger now ..."
Shame on andrew, look at his red face.
He is trying to pull a fast one. His scripture bit is found amongthese:
'14 Bible verses about Spiritual Hunger'
PsalmsEgypt:
81:10 I am the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of
open thy mouth wide, and I will fill it.
Proverbs
13:25 The righteous has enough to satisfy his appetite, But thestomach of
the wicked is in need.
Joelname of
2:26 And ye shall eat in plenty, and be satisfied, and praise the
the LORD your God, that hath dealt wondrously with you: and my
people shall never be ashamed.
Psalmsthings.
107 For he satisfies the thirsty and fills the hungry with good
Actsgood by
14:17 "Yet he did not leave himself without witness, for he did
giving you rains from heaven and fruitful seasons, satisfying
your hearts with food and gladness."
someone eternally condemned & ever more cursed by GOD perseverated:
HeartDoc Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
Subject: a very very very simple definition of sin ...
John:Does andrew's "definition" agree with scripture? Let's see in 1
anJohn wrote this to christians. The greek grammer (sic) speaks of
status. He includes himself in that status.
truth is1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the
our sins,not in us.
1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us
hisand to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
1:10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and
not in us.
Michael Ejercito wrote:Thank you for noting that I have no COVID!
HeartDoc Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
Michael Ejercito wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/oct/13/boris-johnson-covid-laws-rights-decree-two-years-democracy
Boris Johnson’s Covid laws took away our rights with flick of a pen. >>>> Don’t let that happen again
Adam Wagner
Ministers were able to rule by decree for more than two years. That’s >>>> not true democracy and it remains a risk in the future
Boris Johnson addressing the nation from 10 Downing Street as he placed >>>> the UK on lockdown.
Boris Johnson addressing the nation from 10 Downing Street as he placed >>>> the UK under lockdown in March 2020. Photograph: PA
Thu 13 Oct 2022 05.07 EDT
730
It is almost three years since the first case of a novel coronavirus was >>>> identified in Wuhan, China.
It’s just over two and a half years since Boris Johnson gave us a “very
simple instruction”, that we “must stay at home”, followed – three days
later – by a law that for the first time in our history would impose a >>>> 24-hour curfew on almost the entire population. The years, months, weeks >>>> and days since have been so relentless – and at times almost beyond
belief – that it is difficult to begin to process them. Many of us have >>>> experienced personal bereavement, and everyone has been touched in some way.
But as tempting as it is to move on, to focus on other important issues >>>> vexing our society, there are some aspects of the past three years we
must face up to.
Advertisement
There are a hundred lenses through which to view this important period >>>> in modern history, but as a barrister I have looked at the more than 100 >>>> laws that placed England in lockdown, imposed hotel quarantine,
international travel restrictions, self-isolation, face coverings and
business closures.
These were probably the strangest and most extraordinary laws in
England’s history, imposing previously unimaginable restrictions on our >>>> social lives, bringing into the realm of the criminal law areas of life >>>> – where we could worship, when we could leave home, even who we could >>>> hug – that had previously been purely a matter of personal choice.
By early 2020, the Johnson government already had form for seeing
democracy as a gadfly to be swatted away, having tried, and failed – >>>> thanks to the supreme court – to shut down parliament for weeks to ram >>>> through a Brexit deal. When the pandemic hit, it is no surprise that it >>>> took the same approach to involving parliament in the most consequential >>>> decisions and laws in living memory.
The Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 allowed for ministers to >>>> enact the coronavirus regulations with almost no parliamentary scrutiny. >>>> Of 109 lockdown laws, only eight were considered by parliament before
coming into force, usually only a day before. The rest became law
(literally) as soon as Matt Hancock, the then health secretary, put his >>>> signature at the bottom of the page.
Finally, this reckless government faces a reckoning for Covid deaths in >>>> care homes
Charlie Williams
Read more
I am not suggesting that emergency law-making would ever be
straightforward and neat, following all the processes of ordinary
legislation. During public emergencies, events move swiftly and
mercilessly. But it did not have to be like this.
Advertisement
Also troubling was the constant refrain that the government was
“following the science”, by which it meant its scientific advisory >>>> group, Sage. But decisions were ultimately taken in the extremely
powerful but opaque Covid-19 cabinet committees, presided over by four >>>> ministers – Boris Johnson, Rishi Sunak, Matt Hancock and Michael Gove. >>>> No minutes were released and no explanation offered of how decisions
were made. This was the most powerful government committee since the
second world war, but received no scrutiny. Important political
decisions need to be understood, scrutinised and tested. These hardly were.
We still live in the state that permitted ministers to rule by decree
for more than two years, and where basic freedoms were removed without >>>> democratic scrutiny or accountability. In 2008, the Public Health and
Wellbeing Act was amended to include vast powers for ministers to use in >>>> the case of a public health emergency. And because ministers would have >>>> the power to impose laws without parliament having to review them for
four weeks (or sometimes longer), they could, as one prescient member of >>>> the House of Lords put it during the brief 2008 debate, “at the stroke >>>> of a pen … limit and constrain the daily lives and freedoms of citizens”.
Parliament, meanwhile, allowed itself to play the role of a 1,400-person >>>> rubber stamp. The police, tasked with enforcing the ever-growing mass of >>>> legislation, often being changed more than once a week, floundered
between excessive and unjustified intrusions into our private lives, or >>>> – as was initially the case with the Partygate investigation –
attempting to stay out of the fray altogether. The courts, for their
part, also played a limited role, ruling repeatedly that pandemic policy >>>> – even when it interfered with fundamental rights – was a matter for >>>> government and parliament, not judges.
Why does this matter now? Because the pandemic – and the ease with which >>>> ancient freedoms such as the right to protest, to worship, to see our
families, were removed essentially by decisions of a tiny group of
ministers – should be a wake-up call. It is only a matter of time before >>>> a new crisis will arise – either connected to Covid-19, to another virus >>>> or to another kind of emergency altogether.
We must face up to the fact that we are not well protected from a
government if it wanted to use a state of emergency to corrode our
freedoms. We have no written constitution, meaning it is more difficult >>>> for people to claim their rights, and – unlike in many other democracies >>>> – the courts are reluctant to become embroiled in cases involving
fundamental rights that involve political controversy. Government power >>>> has been on the rise for years, not least through the ever increasing
use of secondary legislation to set policy. And our public health
legislation remains extraordinarily broad.
CK Allen, scholar of the vast emergency powers built up during the
second world war, reminds us that freedom “is not easily gained, and, >>>> once surrendered – however necessary the surrender may be – is even less
easily regained”. As tempting as it is to put this dark period in our >>>> history behind us, it is only by looking back that we can, finally, hope >>>> to move forward.
Adam Wagner is a barrister at Doughty Street Chambers. His debut book is >>>> Emergency State: How We Lost Our Liberties in the Pandemic and Why it
Matters (Vintage)
The only *healthy* way to stop the pandemic, thereby saving lives, in
the U.K. & elsewhere is by rapidly ( http://bit.ly/RapidTestCOVID-19
) finding out at any given moment, including even while on-line, who
among us are unwittingly contagious (i.e pre-symptomatic or
asymptomatic) in order to http://tinyurl.com/ConvinceItForward (John
15:12) for them to call their doctor and self-quarantine per their
doctor in hopes of stopping this pandemic. Thus, we're hoping for the
best while preparing for the worse-case scenario of the Alpha lineage
mutations and others like the Omicron, Gamma, Beta, Epsilon, Iota,
Lambda, Mu & Delta lineage mutations combining via
slip-RNA-replication to form hybrids like
http://tinyurl.com/Deltamicron that may render current COVID
vaccines/monoclonals/medicines/pills no longer effective.
Indeed, I am wonderfully hungry ( http://tinyurl.com/RapidOmicronTest
) and hope you, Michael, also have a healthy appetite too.
So how are you ?
I am wonderfully hungry!
While wonderfully hungry in the Holy Spirit, Who causes (Deuteronomy
8:3) us to hunger, I note that you, Michael, are rapture ready (Luke
17:37 means no COVID just as eagles circling over their food have no
COVID) and pray (2 Chronicles 7:14) that our Everlasting (Isaiah 9:6)
Father in Heaven continues to give us "much more" (Luke 11:13) Holy
Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23) so that we'd have much more of His Help to
always say/write that we're "wonderfully hungry" in **all** ways
including especially caring to http://tinyurl.com/ConvinceItForward
(John 15:12 as shown by http://tinyurl.com/RapidOmicronTest ) with all
glory ( http://bit.ly/Psalm112_1 ) to GOD (aka HaShem, Elohim, Abba,
DEO), in the name (John 16:23) of LORD Jesus Christ of Nazareth. Amen.
Laus DEO !
Suggested further reading: https://groups.google.com/g/sci.med.cardiology/c/5EWtT4CwCOg/m/QjNF57xRBAAJ
Shorter link:
http://bit.ly/StatCOVID-19Test
HeartDoc Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
Michael Ejercito wrote:
HeartDoc Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
Michael Ejercito wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/oct/13/boris-johnson-covid-laws-rights-decree-two-years-democracy
Boris Johnson’s Covid laws took away our rights with flick of a pen. >>>>> Don’t let that happen again
Adam Wagner
Ministers were able to rule by decree for more than two years. That’s >>>>> not true democracy and it remains a risk in the future
Boris Johnson addressing the nation from 10 Downing Street as he placed >>>>> the UK on lockdown.
Boris Johnson addressing the nation from 10 Downing Street as he placed >>>>> the UK under lockdown in March 2020. Photograph: PA
Thu 13 Oct 2022 05.07 EDT
730
It is almost three years since the first case of a novel coronavirus was >>>>> identified in Wuhan, China.
It’s just over two and a half years since Boris Johnson gave us a “very >>>>> simple instruction”, that we “must stay at home”, followed – three days >>>>> later – by a law that for the first time in our history would impose a >>>>> 24-hour curfew on almost the entire population. The years, months, weeks >>>>> and days since have been so relentless – and at times almost beyond
belief – that it is difficult to begin to process them. Many of us have >>>>> experienced personal bereavement, and everyone has been touched in some way.
But as tempting as it is to move on, to focus on other important issues >>>>> vexing our society, there are some aspects of the past three years we >>>>> must face up to.
Advertisement
There are a hundred lenses through which to view this important period >>>>> in modern history, but as a barrister I have looked at the more than 100 >>>>> laws that placed England in lockdown, imposed hotel quarantine,
international travel restrictions, self-isolation, face coverings and >>>>> business closures.
These were probably the strangest and most extraordinary laws in
England’s history, imposing previously unimaginable restrictions on our >>>>> social lives, bringing into the realm of the criminal law areas of life >>>>> – where we could worship, when we could leave home, even who we could >>>>> hug – that had previously been purely a matter of personal choice.
By early 2020, the Johnson government already had form for seeing
democracy as a gadfly to be swatted away, having tried, and failed – >>>>> thanks to the supreme court – to shut down parliament for weeks to ram >>>>> through a Brexit deal. When the pandemic hit, it is no surprise that it >>>>> took the same approach to involving parliament in the most consequential >>>>> decisions and laws in living memory.
The Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 allowed for ministers to >>>>> enact the coronavirus regulations with almost no parliamentary scrutiny. >>>>> Of 109 lockdown laws, only eight were considered by parliament before >>>>> coming into force, usually only a day before. The rest became law
(literally) as soon as Matt Hancock, the then health secretary, put his >>>>> signature at the bottom of the page.
Finally, this reckless government faces a reckoning for Covid deaths in >>>>> care homes
Charlie Williams
Read more
I am not suggesting that emergency law-making would ever be
straightforward and neat, following all the processes of ordinary
legislation. During public emergencies, events move swiftly and
mercilessly. But it did not have to be like this.
Advertisement
Also troubling was the constant refrain that the government was
“following the science”, by which it meant its scientific advisory
group, Sage. But decisions were ultimately taken in the extremely
powerful but opaque Covid-19 cabinet committees, presided over by four >>>>> ministers – Boris Johnson, Rishi Sunak, Matt Hancock and Michael Gove. >>>>> No minutes were released and no explanation offered of how decisions >>>>> were made. This was the most powerful government committee since the >>>>> second world war, but received no scrutiny. Important political
decisions need to be understood, scrutinised and tested. These hardly were.
We still live in the state that permitted ministers to rule by decree >>>>> for more than two years, and where basic freedoms were removed without >>>>> democratic scrutiny or accountability. In 2008, the Public Health and >>>>> Wellbeing Act was amended to include vast powers for ministers to use in >>>>> the case of a public health emergency. And because ministers would have >>>>> the power to impose laws without parliament having to review them for >>>>> four weeks (or sometimes longer), they could, as one prescient member of >>>>> the House of Lords put it during the brief 2008 debate, “at the stroke >>>>> of a pen … limit and constrain the daily lives and freedoms of citizens”. >>>>>
Parliament, meanwhile, allowed itself to play the role of a 1,400-person >>>>> rubber stamp. The police, tasked with enforcing the ever-growing mass of >>>>> legislation, often being changed more than once a week, floundered
between excessive and unjustified intrusions into our private lives, or >>>>> – as was initially the case with the Partygate investigation –
attempting to stay out of the fray altogether. The courts, for their >>>>> part, also played a limited role, ruling repeatedly that pandemic policy >>>>> – even when it interfered with fundamental rights – was a matter for >>>>> government and parliament, not judges.
Why does this matter now? Because the pandemic – and the ease with which >>>>> ancient freedoms such as the right to protest, to worship, to see our >>>>> families, were removed essentially by decisions of a tiny group of
ministers – should be a wake-up call. It is only a matter of time before >>>>> a new crisis will arise – either connected to Covid-19, to another virus >>>>> or to another kind of emergency altogether.
We must face up to the fact that we are not well protected from a
government if it wanted to use a state of emergency to corrode our
freedoms. We have no written constitution, meaning it is more difficult >>>>> for people to claim their rights, and – unlike in many other democracies >>>>> – the courts are reluctant to become embroiled in cases involving
fundamental rights that involve political controversy. Government power >>>>> has been on the rise for years, not least through the ever increasing >>>>> use of secondary legislation to set policy. And our public health
legislation remains extraordinarily broad.
CK Allen, scholar of the vast emergency powers built up during the
second world war, reminds us that freedom “is not easily gained, and, >>>>> once surrendered – however necessary the surrender may be – is even less >>>>> easily regained”. As tempting as it is to put this dark period in our >>>>> history behind us, it is only by looking back that we can, finally, hope >>>>> to move forward.
Adam Wagner is a barrister at Doughty Street Chambers. His debut book is >>>>> Emergency State: How We Lost Our Liberties in the Pandemic and Why it >>>>> Matters (Vintage)
The only *healthy* way to stop the pandemic, thereby saving lives, in
the U.K. & elsewhere is by rapidly ( http://bit.ly/RapidTestCOVID-19
) finding out at any given moment, including even while on-line, who
among us are unwittingly contagious (i.e pre-symptomatic or
asymptomatic) in order to http://tinyurl.com/ConvinceItForward (John
15:12) for them to call their doctor and self-quarantine per their
doctor in hopes of stopping this pandemic. Thus, we're hoping for the
best while preparing for the worse-case scenario of the Alpha lineage
mutations and others like the Omicron, Gamma, Beta, Epsilon, Iota,
Lambda, Mu & Delta lineage mutations combining via
slip-RNA-replication to form hybrids like
http://tinyurl.com/Deltamicron that may render current COVID
vaccines/monoclonals/medicines/pills no longer effective.
Indeed, I am wonderfully hungry ( http://tinyurl.com/RapidOmicronTest
) and hope you, Michael, also have a healthy appetite too.
So how are you ?
I am wonderfully hungry!
While wonderfully hungry in the Holy Spirit, Who causes (Deuteronomy
8:3) us to hunger, I note that you, Michael, are rapture ready (Luke
17:37 means no COVID just as eagles circling over their food have no
COVID) and pray (2 Chronicles 7:14) that our Everlasting (Isaiah 9:6)
Father in Heaven continues to give us "much more" (Luke 11:13) Holy
Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23) so that we'd have much more of His Help to
always say/write that we're "wonderfully hungry" in **all** ways
including especially caring to http://tinyurl.com/ConvinceItForward
(John 15:12 as shown by http://tinyurl.com/RapidOmicronTest ) with all
glory ( http://bit.ly/Psalm112_1 ) to GOD (aka HaShem, Elohim, Abba,
DEO), in the name (John 16:23) of LORD Jesus Christ of Nazareth. Amen.
Laus DEO !
Suggested further reading:
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.med.cardiology/c/5EWtT4CwCOg/m/QjNF57xRBAAJ >>
Shorter link:
http://bit.ly/StatCOVID-19Test
Thank you for noting that I have no COVID!
HeartDoc Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
Subject: The LORD says "Blessed are you who hunger now ..."
Shame on andrew, look at his red face.
He is trying to pull a fast one. His scripture bit is found amongthese:
'14 Bible verses about Spiritual Hunger'
PsalmsEgypt:
81:10 I am the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of
open thy mouth wide, and I will fill it.
Proverbs
13:25 The righteous has enough to satisfy his appetite, But thestomach of
the wicked is in need.
Joelname of
2:26 And ye shall eat in plenty, and be satisfied, and praise the
the LORD your God, that hath dealt wondrously with you: and my
people shall never be ashamed.
Psalmsthings.
107 For he satisfies the thirsty and fills the hungry with good
Actsgood by
14:17 "Yet he did not leave himself without witness, for he did
giving you rains from heaven and fruitful seasons, satisfying
your hearts with food and gladness."
someone eternally condemned & ever more cursed by GOD perseverated:
HeartDoc Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
Subject: a very very very simple definition of sin ...
John:Does andrew's "definition" agree with scripture? Let's see in 1
anJohn wrote this to christians. The greek grammer (sic) speaks of
status. He includes himself in that status.
truth is1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the
our sins,not in us.
1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us
hisand to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
1:10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and
not in us.
HeartDoc Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
Subject: The LORD says "Blessed are you who hunger now ..."
Shame on andrew, look at his red face.
He is trying to pull a fast one. His scripture bit is found amongthese:
'14 Bible verses about Spiritual Hunger'
PsalmsEgypt:
81:10 I am the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of
open thy mouth wide, and I will fill it.
Proverbs
13:25 The righteous has enough to satisfy his appetite, But thestomach of
the wicked is in need.
Joelname of
2:26 And ye shall eat in plenty, and be satisfied, and praise the
the LORD your God, that hath dealt wondrously with you: and my
people shall never be ashamed.
Psalmsthings.
107 For he satisfies the thirsty and fills the hungry with good
Actsgood by
14:17 "Yet he did not leave himself without witness, for he did
giving you rains from heaven and fruitful seasons, satisfying
your hearts with food and gladness."
someone eternally condemned & ever more cursed by GOD perseverated:
HeartDoc Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
Subject: a very very very simple definition of sin ...
John:Does andrew's "definition" agree with scripture? Let's see in 1
anJohn wrote this to christians. The greek grammer (sic) speaks of
status. He includes himself in that status.
truth is1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the
our sins,not in us.
1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us
hisand to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
1:10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and
not in us.
(Adam) 10/17/22 Again praying w/ MichaelE here ...
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.bible.prophecy/c/PNGIkfIO5Bw/m/UG37DDj_DAAJ
HeartDoc Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
Subject: The LORD says "Blessed are you who hunger now ..."
Shame on andrew, look at his red face.
He is trying to pull a fast one. His scripture bit is found amongthese:
'14 Bible verses about Spiritual Hunger'
PsalmsEgypt:
81:10 I am the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of
open thy mouth wide, and I will fill it.
Proverbs
13:25 The righteous has enough to satisfy his appetite, But thestomach of
the wicked is in need.
Joelname of
2:26 And ye shall eat in plenty, and be satisfied, and praise the
the LORD your God, that hath dealt wondrously with you: and my
people shall never be ashamed.
Psalmsthings.
107 For he satisfies the thirsty and fills the hungry with good
Actsgood by
14:17 "Yet he did not leave himself without witness, for he did
giving you rains from heaven and fruitful seasons, satisfying
your hearts with food and gladness."
someone eternally condemned & ever more cursed by GOD perseverated:
HeartDoc Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
Subject: a very very very simple definition of sin ...
John:Does andrew's "definition" agree with scripture? Let's see in 1
anJohn wrote this to christians. The greek grammer (sic) speaks of
status. He includes himself in that status.
truth is1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the
our sins,not in us.
1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us
hisand to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
1:10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and
not in us.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 302 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 122:01:11 |
| Calls: | 6,769 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 12,299 |
| Messages: | 5,376,788 |
| Posted today: | 2 |