Emergency legislation - information and commentary

[carinaman]

New freedoms from tomorrow.

That's nice of them. Did I give my freedoms away or were they just taken?

[meatballs]

Jasandjules said:

We are being led by incompetent fools

https://twitter.com/francescolari/status/127893936...

I suspect the MPs tot up the numbers themselves.

[djohnson]

carinaman said:

New freedoms from tomorrow.

That's nice of them. Did I give my freedoms away or were they just taken?

Have they actually changed the law yet? I’ve not seen an amendment to the Statutory Instrument?

[jamei303]

Nothing published yet, and nothing about Leicester either. They've been busy rushing out The Pressure Vessels (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 and The A470 Trunk Road (Coryton Interchange, Cardiff to Abercynon Roundabout, Rhondda Cynon Taf) (Temporary Traffic Prohibitions & Restrictions) Order 2020.

[Elysium]

djohnson said:

carinaman said:

New freedoms from tomorrow.

That's nice of them. Did I give my freedoms away or were they just taken?

Have they actually changed the law yet? I’ve not seen an amendment to the Statutory Instrument?

It does not seem so.

If they do not do so before midnight then we have an interesting situation where Govt guidance will be encouraging the public to break the law.

[Graveworm]

Elysium said:

djohnson said:

carinaman said:

New freedoms from tomorrow.

That's nice of them. Did I give my freedoms away or were they just taken?

Have they actually changed the law yet? I’ve not seen an amendment to the Statutory Instrument?

It does not seem so.

If they do not do so before midnight then we have an interesting situation where Govt guidance will be encouraging the public to break the law.

They don't have to be published to be in force. In fact they often are published after the event.

[spookly]

Graveworm said:

Elysium said:

djohnson said:

carinaman said:

New freedoms from tomorrow.

That's nice of them. Did I give my freedoms away or were they just taken?

Have they actually changed the law yet? I’ve not seen an amendment to the Statutory Instrument?

It does not seem so.

If they do not do so before midnight then we have an interesting situation where Govt guidance will be encouraging the public to break the law.

They don't have to be published to be in force. In fact they often are published after the event.

But.... ignorance of the law that has not been published would still not be an acceptable defence?

[meatballs]

spookly said:

But.... ignorance of the law that has not been published would still not be an acceptable defence?

Same was true before the WWW.

[BMWBen]

So how about this one:

5. (5) In determining whether all reasonable measures have been taken to limit the risk of
transmission of the coronavirus for the purposes of paragraph (3)(a)(iii), any guidance issued by
the government relevant to the gathering in question must be taken into account.


So "government guidelines" are now law in the context of a gathering of more than 30 people. Not sure how I feel about that one... One for the supreme court if it comes to it I expect! Has Robert Mugabe come back from the dead to write coronovirus regulations?

Edited by BMWBen on Friday 3rd July 16:17

[Plymo]

New regulations for England http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/684/conten...
Basically any gathering is legal as long as it's under 30, including indoors.

Oh and no music and dancing in nightclubs.

And no "sexual entertainment venues"


And Leicester:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/685/conten...

Basically rolling back restrictions 2 weeks wrt shops.
No movement restrictions, except for reasonable excuse for overnight stays in Leicester, or for Leicester people staying overnight outside of Leicester.
You are free to leave Leicester to go to pubs and shops and then go back in.

[carinaman]

Jasandjules said:

We are being led by incompetent fools

https://twitter.com/francescolari/status/127893936...

Thanks. Useful for the replies too.

So MPs who cannot count and add up are being led by the science?

[RSTurboPaul]

Jasandjules said:

We are being led by incompetent fools

https://twitter.com/francescolari/status/127893936...

Thanks for that link

Some interesting comments underneath it!

Twitter reply said:

Double and treble counts according to Nurses. Who tested tests when they discovered these things were wrong. Tested tests showed positive results without touching a human.

Twitter reply said:

Vallance admitted 20,000 deaths with Covid on death certificate hadn’t actually been tested. If they keep at it, we might eliminate the whole thing

(Did he??)

Twitter reply said:

And when you redo the tables for the East & West Midlands combined you move from blue to Orange which is why Leicester is locked down!

(graph for this post here:
https://twitter.com/IanBottomer/status/12790363267... )

Edited by RSTurboPaul on Friday 3rd July 17:23

[markyb_lcy]

I’m finding this particular section of the new legislation irritating...

SI350 said:

(5) In determining whether all reasonable measures have been taken to limit the risk of transmission of the coronavirus for the purposes of paragraph (3)(a)(iii), any guidance issued by the government relevant to the gathering in question must be taken into account.

“Taken into account” ... does that mean it can not be legally disregarded and therefore guidance is law when pertaining to gatherings?

[meatballs]

markyb_lcy said:

I’m finding this particular section of the new legislation irritating...

SI350 said:

(5) In determining whether all reasonable measures have been taken to limit the risk of transmission of the coronavirus for the purposes of paragraph (3)(a)(iii), any guidance issued by the government relevant to the gathering in question must be taken into account.

“Taken into account” ... does that mean it can not be legally disregarded and therefore guidance is law when pertaining to gatherings?

In the original legislation when it said "reasonable excuse" don't you think the published guidance of the time would feed into what is considered "reasonable" if it came to court?

[markyb_lcy]

meatballs said:

markyb_lcy said:

I’m finding this particular section of the new legislation irritating...

SI350 said:

(5) In determining whether all reasonable measures have been taken to limit the risk of transmission of the coronavirus for the purposes of paragraph (3)(a)(iii), any guidance issued by the government relevant to the gathering in question must be taken into account.

“Taken into account” ... does that mean it can not be legally disregarded and therefore guidance is law when pertaining to gatherings?

In the original legislation when it said "reasonable excuse" don't you think the published guidance of the time would feed into what is considered "reasonable" if it came to court?

Not necessarily, no. Really it’s anyone’s guess.

Ministers do not define the bounds of legality via advice and press conferences.

[meatballs]

markyb_lcy said:

meatballs said:

markyb_lcy said:

I’m finding this particular section of the new legislation irritating...

SI350 said:

(5) In determining whether all reasonable measures have been taken to limit the risk of transmission of the coronavirus for the purposes of paragraph (3)(a)(iii), any guidance issued by the government relevant to the gathering in question must be taken into account.

“Taken into account” ... does that mean it can not be legally disregarded and therefore guidance is law when pertaining to gatherings?

In the original legislation when it said "reasonable excuse" don't you think the published guidance of the time would feed into what is considered "reasonable" if it came to court?

Not necessarily, no. Really it’s anyone’s guess.

Ministers do not define the bounds of legality via advice and press conferences.

I wasn't thinking really thinking about press conference guidance but the written guidance published on gov.uk.

What context do you think a magistrate or judge should base their concept of reasonable on, when there is written guidance on good/desirable behaviours to prevent the spread of the virus?

I'm not particularly for or against the guidance being used as part of a court's decision, but surely coming to a reasonable view on something involves considering material from "trustworthy" sources. If you take an expert opinion into consideration, wouldn't you take the expert opinion of the government as it's supposed to be backed by a scientific body (i.e. sage)?

To be clear I'm not asking you to agree/disagree with the government guidance, but what would you actually think a magistrate/judge would do in coming to a decision on reasonableness.

[markyb_lcy]

meatballs said:

markyb_lcy said:

meatballs said:

markyb_lcy said:

I’m finding this particular section of the new legislation irritating...

SI350 said:

(5) In determining whether all reasonable measures have been taken to limit the risk of transmission of the coronavirus for the purposes of paragraph (3)(a)(iii), any guidance issued by the government relevant to the gathering in question must be taken into account.

“Taken into account” ... does that mean it can not be legally disregarded and therefore guidance is law when pertaining to gatherings?

In the original legislation when it said "reasonable excuse" don't you think the published guidance of the time would feed into what is considered "reasonable" if it came to court?

Not necessarily, no. Really it’s anyone’s guess.

Ministers do not define the bounds of legality via advice and press conferences.

I wasn't thinking really thinking about press conference guidance but the written guidance published on gov.uk.

What context do you think a magistrate or judge should base their concept of reasonable on, when there is written guidance on good/desirable behaviours to prevent the spread of the virus?

I'm not particularly for or against the guidance being used as part of a court's decision, but surely coming to a reasonable view on something involves considering material from "trustworthy" sources. If you take an expert opinion into consideration, wouldn't you take the expert opinion of the government as it's supposed to be backed by a scientific body (i.e. sage)?

To be clear I'm not asking you to agree/disagree with the government guidance, but what would you actually think a magistrate/judge would do in coming to a decision on reasonableness.

Honestly I’d expect them to consider each given case on its own merits. If you’re breaking the explicit aspect of the law (or rather, you didn’t have one of the explicit “reasonable excuses”) then you were almost certainly breaking guidance anyway ... since the law is less “stringent” than the guidance.

The fact that “reasonable excuse” was non-exhaustive was I think added because there are so many edge-cases that it would unreasonable to expect to have every single one written into the legislation.

Now if you asked me if Cummings had a reasonable excuse to drive to Barnard Castle to test his eyesight, then I would say he didn’t, and I’d be surprised if you could find a single magistrate who wouldn’t agree

[Stay in Bed Instead]

Plymo said:

New regulations for England http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/684/conten...
Basically any gathering is legal as long as it's under 30, including indoors.

Oh and no music and dancing in nightclubs.

And no "sexual entertainment venues"

Awww, I've been really missing the swingers club.

[Graveworm]

carinaman said:

Jasandjules said:

We are being led by incompetent fools

https://twitter.com/francescolari/status/127893936...

Thanks. Useful for the replies too.

So MPs who cannot count and add up are being led by the science?

Which MP counted the deaths?

[Elysium]

just noticed that these are new regulations, so the expiry date is now extended to a full 6 months from today.