Emergency legislation - information and commentary

[meatballs]

Graveworm said:

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?

Obviously Hancock spends his evenings cocking up spreadsheets.

[markyb_lcy]

Elysium said:

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

Is that so? My expectation was the expiry is 6 months from first incarnation and it can be amended as many times as they like during that.

[spookly]

Graveworm said:

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?

Diane Abbott.

[Elysium]

markyb_lcy said:

Elysium said:

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

Is that so? My expectation was the expiry is 6 months from first incarnation and it can be amended as many times as they like during that.

These are the No 2 Regulations. Fully rewritten, not amended as before. They state 6 months from the date they were made, which is today.

[markyb_lcy]

Elysium said:

markyb_lcy said:

Elysium said:

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

Is that so? My expectation was the expiry is 6 months from first incarnation and it can be amended as many times as they like during that.

These are the No 2 Regulations. Fully rewritten, not amended as before. They state 6 months from the date they were made, which is today.

That seems strange to me ... as if they could keep these going indefinitely without them ever going back to Parliament?

[RSTurboPaul]

markyb_lcy said:

Elysium said:

markyb_lcy said:

Elysium said:

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

Is that so? My expectation was the expiry is 6 months from first incarnation and it can be amended as many times as they like during that.

These are the No 2 Regulations. Fully rewritten, not amended as before. They state 6 months from the date they were made, which is today.

That seems strange to me ... as if they could keep these going indefinitely without them ever going back to Parliament?

I may wear my tin foil hat more than I should, but this quiet extension of the time that powers can apply, with no checks or balances from Parliament, concerns me.

I would place money on BBC et al staying silent on this change as well.

[markyb_lcy]

RSTurboPaul said:

markyb_lcy said:

Elysium said:

markyb_lcy said:

Elysium said:

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

Is that so? My expectation was the expiry is 6 months from first incarnation and it can be amended as many times as they like during that.

These are the No 2 Regulations. Fully rewritten, not amended as before. They state 6 months from the date they were made, which is today.

That seems strange to me ... as if they could keep these going indefinitely without them ever going back to Parliament?

I may wear my tin foil hat more than I should, but this quiet extension of the time that powers can apply, with no checks or balances from Parliament, concerns me.

I would place money on BBC et al staying silent on this change as well.

Yea me too mate. How can it ever be stopped if they don't stop it themselves? These are signs of a dictatorship.

[Elysium]

The other significant point is the new section 6 which allows the secretary of state to close any public space, or any type of public space by direction.

Hancock claimed to have the power to close the beaches and he has just granted it to himself:

https://metro.co.uk/2020/06/26/matt-hancock-threat...

[RSTurboPaul]

Elysium said:

The other significant point is the new section 6 which allows the secretary of state to close any public space, or any type of public space by direction.

Hancock claimed to have the power to close the beaches and he has just granted it to himself:

https://metro.co.uk/2020/06/26/matt-hancock-threat...

This is all sorts of wrong.

Where is the scrutiny? What are the MPs doing?? (other than being scared to speak out in public in case their facebook-loving constituents think they are murdering psychopaths?) Where does the House of Lords fit into the review process?

I feel totally powerless in this, and like empirical evidence holds no weight - both of which rankles a lot.

[Elysium]

RSTurboPaul said:

Elysium said:

The other significant point is the new section 6 which allows the secretary of state to close any public space, or any type of public space by direction.

Hancock claimed to have the power to close the beaches and he has just granted it to himself:

https://metro.co.uk/2020/06/26/matt-hancock-threat...

This is all sorts of wrong.

Where is the scrutiny? What are the MPs doing?? (other than being scared to speak out in public in case their facebook-loving constituents think they are murdering psychopaths?) Where does the House of Lords fit into the review process?

I feel totally powerless in this, and like empirical evidence holds no weight - both of which rankles a lot.

MP’s not involved again due to the urgent need for these new regulations.

If this was related to any other issue the outcry would be incredible. The shocker for me is that people will accept almost any level of authoritarianism if it is aligned with a cause they support.

What do we think Hancock will close first?

[RSTurboPaul]

Elysium said:

RSTurboPaul said:

Elysium said:

The other significant point is the new section 6 which allows the secretary of state to close any public space, or any type of public space by direction.

Hancock claimed to have the power to close the beaches and he has just granted it to himself:

https://metro.co.uk/2020/06/26/matt-hancock-threat...

This is all sorts of wrong.

Where is the scrutiny? What are the MPs doing?? (other than being scared to speak out in public in case their facebook-loving constituents think they are murdering psychopaths?) Where does the House of Lords fit into the review process?

I feel totally powerless in this, and like empirical evidence holds no weight - both of which rankles a lot.

MP’s not involved again due to the urgent need for these new regulations.

If this was related to any other issue the outcry would be incredible. The shocker for me is that people will accept almost any level of authoritarianism if it is aligned with a cause they support.

What do we think Hancock will close first?

Agreed re: lack of outcry. What's possibly more amazing is that pointing this out to people seems to get the response "Don't you care about the old people / kids? Do you want them to die? The government should do everything they can - stop looking for technicalities to avoid obeying the rules (guidance...)"


'Urgent' is, again, clearly BS.


My money would be on pubs and beaches being closed. We can't have the plebs having any fun, now, can we?

[Plymo]

RSTurboPaul said:

Elysium said:

The other significant point is the new section 6 which allows the secretary of state to close any public space, or any type of public space by direction.

Hancock claimed to have the power to close the beaches and he has just granted it to himself:

https://metro.co.uk/2020/06/26/matt-hancock-threat...

This is all sorts of wrong.

Where is the scrutiny? What are the MPs doing?? (other than being scared to speak out in public in case their facebook-loving constituents think they are murdering psychopaths?) Where does the House of Lords fit into the review process?

I feel totally powerless in this, and like empirical evidence holds no weight - both of which rankles a lot.

Interesting, from the beginning the Welsh regulations have made it a requirement for local authorities to close any public path or access land that:

"(a) to be liable to large numbers of people congregating or being in close proximity to each
other, or
(b) the use of which otherwise poses a high risk to the incidence or spread of infection in its
area with the coronavirus."

And makes it an offence to enter those closed areas.

Remember early on when the UK gov was explaining how parks should be open, risk of transmission is low outside? They were busy closing them off in Wales. Lunacy

Edit: The lack of outcry is because no one (seemingly not even major broadcasters or newspapers) seem to actually read the regulations. They rely on briefings and websites for writing their stories about it.

[John Locke]

markyb_lcy said:

Yea me too mate. How can it ever be stopped if they don't stop it themselves? These are signs of a dictatorship.

RSTurboPaul said:

Elysium said:

The other significant point is the new section 6 which allows the secretary of state to close any public space, or any type of public space by direction.

Hancock claimed to have the power to close the beaches and he has just granted it to himself:

https://metro.co.uk/2020/06/26/matt-hancock-threat...

This is all sorts of wrong.

Where is the scrutiny? What are the MPs doing?? (other than being scared to speak out in public in case their facebook-loving constituents think they are murdering psychopaths?) Where does the House of Lords fit into the review process?

I feel totally powerless in this, and like empirical evidence holds no weight - both of which rankles a lot.

What is wrong with people in this country?
They will riot against an injustice thousands of miles away, yet meekly accept those on their own doorstep.

Our lives, livelihoods and freedoms matter too.

[jamei303]

Funnily enough the power to close land and even public footpaths was included in the original Welsh regulations, but no one batted an eyelid on here.

[Elysium]

markyb_lcy said:

Elysium said:

markyb_lcy said:

Elysium said:

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

Is that so? My expectation was the expiry is 6 months from first incarnation and it can be amended as many times as they like during that.

These are the No 2 Regulations. Fully rewritten, not amended as before. They state 6 months from the date they were made, which is today.

That seems strange to me ... as if they could keep these going indefinitely without them ever going back to Parliament?

Is it possible that the decision to revoke and replace the regulations is linked to the Judicial Review?

If the regs that were originally challenged are no longer law does the process need to restart in order to challenge the new ones?

[markyb_lcy]

Elysium said:

markyb_lcy said:

Elysium said:

markyb_lcy said:

Elysium said:

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

Is that so? My expectation was the expiry is 6 months from first incarnation and it can be amended as many times as they like during that.

These are the No 2 Regulations. Fully rewritten, not amended as before. They state 6 months from the date they were made, which is today.

That seems strange to me ... as if they could keep these going indefinitely without them ever going back to Parliament?

Is it possible that the decision to revoke and replace the regulations is linked to the Judicial Review?

If the regs that were originally challenged are no longer law does the process need to restart in order to challenge the new ones?

Good questions. If the answer to the latter one is "yes", then it is open to infinite abuse ... as soon as a given JR looks like getting anywhere, they could switch the regs ... rinse and repeat.

I find it hard to believe they could avoid parliamentary and judicial oversight indefinitely in this way. There must be a democratic way to stop this otherwise we are indeed in dictatorship territory.

[markyb_lcy]

jamei303 said:

Funnily enough the power to close land and even public footpaths was included in the original Welsh regulations, but no one batted an eyelid on here.

Do we lack members in Wales? I've not seen much from individual posters about Wales but plenty about Scotland.

I'm in England and I feel I have enough to rant about in my own country right now!

[unident]

markyb_lcy said:

Good questions. If the answer to the latter one is "yes", then it is open to infinite abuse ... as soon as a given JR looks like getting anywhere, they could switch the regs ... rinse and repeat.

I find it hard to believe they could avoid parliamentary and judicial oversight indefinitely in this way. There must be a democratic way to stop this otherwise we are indeed in dictatorship territory.

In your words

markyb_lcy said:

Get a fking grip! Jeez.

Edited by unident on Saturday 4th July 14:38

[jamei303]

markyb_lcy said:

Good questions. If the answer to the latter one is "yes", then it is open to infinite abuse ... as soon as a given JR looks like getting anywhere, they could switch the regs ... rinse and repeat.

I find it hard to believe they could avoid parliamentary and judicial oversight indefinitely in this way. There must be a democratic way to stop this otherwise we are indeed in dictatorship territory.

If a majority of MPs don't want something, they can stop it from happening. For example they could refuse to pass budgetary measures to raise taxes unless the government revises the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984, or any number of parliamentary other wheezes.

[Elysium]

unident said:

markyb_lcy said:

Good questions. If the answer to the latter one is "yes", then it is open to infinite abuse ... as soon as a given JR looks like getting anywhere, they could switch the regs ... rinse and repeat.

I find it hard to believe they could avoid parliamentary and judicial oversight indefinitely in this way. There must be a democratic way to stop this otherwise we are indeed in dictatorship territory.

In your words

markyb_lcy said:

Get a fking grip! Jeez.

So where is the democratic solution?

The Govt has made new laws granting itself sweeping new powers by using a mechanism that deliberately excludes Parliament. They appear to have used a 'bait and switch tactic to quash a legal challenge, which argued that the legislation in question was ultra vires because the mechanism that excluded parliament was not applicable to this situation and there was a more appropriate route which would require Parliamentary scrutiny.

The Coronavirus Act also postponed local elections by a year