Emergency legislation - information and commentary
Discussion
Experts? Pah! I read about how to do science and stuff on Facebook. Did you know that if you boil up Mr Sheen with Fairy Liquid and blackberry jam it kills the bug? Old medieval remedy. The Government doesn't want you to know that. That's why they have made it illegal to own tinfoil.
Breadvan72 said:
Experts? Pah! I read about how to do science and stuff on Facebook. Did you know that if you boil up Mr Sheen with Fairy Liquid and blackberry jam it kills the bug? Old medieval remedy. The Government doesn't want you to know that. That's why they have made it illegal to own tinfoil.
Interestingly, Johnson and his crew seem to have come to the view that experts are worth listening to. Whether this is really the Damascene conversion it appears, or a realisation that having followed scientific and medical advice will be a good defence, one can only guess.barian said:
Breadvan72 said:
Experts? Pah! I read about how to do science and stuff on Facebook. Did you know that if you boil up Mr Sheen with Fairy Liquid and blackberry jam it kills the bug? Old medieval remedy. The Government doesn't want you to know that. That's why they have made it illegal to own tinfoil.
Interestingly, Johnson and his crew seem to have come to the view that experts are worth listening to. Whether this is really the Damascene conversion it appears, or a realisation that having followed scientific and medical advice will be a good defence, one can only guess.
agtlaw said:
Pica-Pica said:
It is NOT legislation...
Wrong. It’s secondary legislation. The clue is in the website address (and the title of this thread).Edited by agtlaw on Sunday 22 March 10:17
agtlaw said:
Pica-Pica said:
More precisely, a Statutory Instrument. A particular form of secondary legislation. Certainly not primary legislation.
Lol.Having read the document I have some doubt about the knowledge possessed by the writer - Staff canteens are included in the closure order.
If you have an office with 1,000 employees who are perhaps working in close proximity (this could even be open plan offices in a call center) to each other, they are not able to utilize an on-site canteen. Instead they will have to leave the building and mix with other members of the public in order to obtain food and drink..
If you have an office with 1,000 employees who are perhaps working in close proximity (this could even be open plan offices in a call center) to each other, they are not able to utilize an on-site canteen. Instead they will have to leave the building and mix with other members of the public in order to obtain food and drink..
Is there a reason why the Civil Contingencies Act isn't being used? Parliament has to approve it, but I'd have thought this was just the time for it.
Is it because:
The Govt doesn't want to have a commons debate as such a debate may distract from matters arising?
The opposition would demand a coalition government or some sort of seat at the table?
The act goes too far or isn't flexible enough?
It's easier to use specific ministerial powers in a more flexible or adaptable way?
Introducing the act may panic people?
Or none of the above?
Wildcat45 said:
Is there a reason why the Civil Contingencies Act isn't being used? Parliament has to approve it, but I'd have thought this was just the time for it.
Is it because:
The Govt doesn't want to have a commons debate as such a debate may distract from matters arising?
The opposition would demand a coalition government or some sort of seat at the table?
The act goes too far or isn't flexible enough?
It's easier to use specific ministerial powers in a more flexible or adaptable way?
Introducing the act may panic people?
Or none of the above?
Place your bets, ladies and gentlemen Is it because:
The Govt doesn't want to have a commons debate as such a debate may distract from matters arising?
The opposition would demand a coalition government or some sort of seat at the table?
The act goes too far or isn't flexible enough?
It's easier to use specific ministerial powers in a more flexible or adaptable way?
Introducing the act may panic people?
Or none of the above?
So detailed is the “emergency” legislation that some believe it was already written awaiting some sort of crisis, perhaps of the Brexit variety, as an excuse for its introduction...
Some say it is a dangerous power grab by entitled and soon to be unaccountable people of dubious moral fibre...
Wildcat45 said:
Is there a reason why the Civil Contingencies Act isn't being used? Parliament has to approve it, but I'd have thought this was just the time for it.
Is it because:
The Govt doesn't want to have a commons debate as such a debate may distract from matters arising?
The opposition would demand a coalition government or some sort of seat at the table?
The act goes too far or isn't flexible enough?
It's easier to use specific ministerial powers in a more flexible or adaptable way?
Introducing the act may panic people?
Or none of the above?
My view is that the current Government dislikes the Parliamentary safeguards built in to the 2004 Act, which requires debates, and which is also anchored by reference to the Human Rights Act 1998, which this Government also dislikes. Historical snippet: the HRA is not some foreign imposition. The ECHR, which the HRA implements, was drafted by a team led by the British Conservative politician David Maxwell-Fyfe, later Lord Kilmuir, who served as Home Secretary and Lord Chancellor in postwar Conservative administrations, and largely reflects principles developed by the common law. Johnson et al, however, are not Conservatives, so that matters not to them. Is it because:
The Govt doesn't want to have a commons debate as such a debate may distract from matters arising?
The opposition would demand a coalition government or some sort of seat at the table?
The act goes too far or isn't flexible enough?
It's easier to use specific ministerial powers in a more flexible or adaptable way?
Introducing the act may panic people?
Or none of the above?
The debates required by the 2004 Act could, with suitable amending legislation perhaps, be conducted by videolink. A tech challenge, but not beyond the resources of the UK.
By the way, confusion reigns in the courts this morning, with some insisting on hearings, jurors being told to assemble, and other courts switching to video and telephone hearings. I was in a hearing last week in a commonwealth jurisdiction where I was number two in a three lawyer team. I was in court with the other parties and the Judge, but the QC instructed by my side and the junior junior were on a videolink from London. It worked well enough. We had suggested that everyone should be on videolink, but the court insisted on gathering seven lawyers , one Judge, and three court staff in one room.
A blog on the Bill
https://constitution-unit.com/2020/03/23/parliamen...
I have noticed from Twitter and Facebook that some people think that the Bill is already the law. The absence of public education about how the UK Constitution works shows itself yet again.
https://constitution-unit.com/2020/03/23/parliamen...
I have noticed from Twitter and Facebook that some people think that the Bill is already the law. The absence of public education about how the UK Constitution works shows itself yet again.
Update: the business closure regs for Wales.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/wsi/2020/326/made
Ireland, I see, enacted its emergency powers legislation last week. Other European countries, which follow the more Bonapartist model of the State, tend already to have more extensive powers to control public behaviour than common law jurisdictions have.
Another thing notable on Twitter etc is how many people are keen on authoritarianism in general, and some seem to be very keen on ideas such as Martial law. There is a bit of that going on in N,P&E here.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/wsi/2020/326/made
Ireland, I see, enacted its emergency powers legislation last week. Other European countries, which follow the more Bonapartist model of the State, tend already to have more extensive powers to control public behaviour than common law jurisdictions have.
Another thing notable on Twitter etc is how many people are keen on authoritarianism in general, and some seem to be very keen on ideas such as Martial law. There is a bit of that going on in N,P&E here.
David Davis MP was just on Radio 4 with Tory Today Presenter Nick Robinson. Davis said the Civil Contigencies Act introduced by Blair's New Labour could be used and that Rees-Mogg called it wrong last week.
Davis also suggested this could be rushed through, but give it a 9 months limit so a properly thought out, debated and written replacement could be in place in a years time.
Davis also suggested this could be rushed through, but give it a 9 months limit so a properly thought out, debated and written replacement could be in place in a years time.
See my post above,when the British public seem incapable of of exercising restraint and not just sitting at home watching pornhub during a pandemic of this nature I feel the state has to have the powers to treat them like the children they so obviously are.
The only caveat I have is it needs to be time limited
The only caveat I have is it needs to be time limited
citizensm1th said:
See my post above,when the British public seem incapable of of exercising restraint and not just sitting at home watching pornhub during a pandemic of this nature I feel the state has to have the powers to treat them like the children they so obviously are.
The only caveat I have is it needs to be time limited
You’ve changed Wolfie. Whatever happened to liberation and your all consuming drive for it from Tooting?The only caveat I have is it needs to be time limited
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff