Emergency legislation - information and commentary
Discussion
markyb_lcy said:
Not sure of course if he will follow through and I doubt if he does that he will have much success but it will raise a few issues and talking points.
https://static.crowdjustice.com/group_claim_document/Letter_to_The_Rt_Hon_Matt_Hancock_MP_Secretary_of_State_for_Health__DgnuEzh.PDFJasandjules said:
markyb_lcy said:
Not sure of course if he will follow through and I doubt if he does that he will have much success but it will raise a few issues and talking points.
https://static.crowdjustice.com/group_claim_document/Letter_to_The_Rt_Hon_Matt_Hancock_MP_Secretary_of_State_for_Health__DgnuEzh.PDFjm doc said:
Jasandjules said:
markyb_lcy said:
Not sure of course if he will follow through and I doubt if he does that he will have much success but it will raise a few issues and talking points.
https://static.crowdjustice.com/group_claim_document/Letter_to_The_Rt_Hon_Matt_Hancock_MP_Secretary_of_State_for_Health__DgnuEzh.PDFhttps://www.legal500.com/firms/3491-wedlake-bell-l...
Are they a big hitter?
Breadvan72 said:
Drawweight said:
Regulations (at least in Scotland) specify ‘daily exercise ‘
deeen said:
In Wales, from memory, I believe you are permitted to leave home for one form of exercise each day. So, if you take that literally, you could go out for 27 different walks, but if you then went for a bike ride, you'd be breaking the law.
Sorry. Wrong. Regulation 8:2(b)http://www.legislation.gov.uk/wsi/2020/353/regulat...
Oceanrower said:
deeen said:
In Wales, from memory, I believe you are permitted to leave home for one form of exercise each day. So, if you take that literally, you could go out for 27 different walks, but if you then went for a bike ride, you'd be breaking the law.
Sorry. Wrong. Regulation 8:2(b)http://www.legislation.gov.uk/wsi/2020/353/regulat...
zzrman said:
jm doc said:
So you understood what I meant about needing a governement of all parties? But you find it completely acceptable to have a one party state? As far as I'm concerned, imposing a lockdown on everyone by one political party can never be legitimate, it should always be in complete agreement with full support and involvement of all political parties. That is not the case, other parties have been excluded from discussion and debate despite concerns about the situation. It really is astonishing. Perhaps you should the link below and understand just how badly wrong many people think their approach has been.
You see to be oblivious as to how this country is run. It isn't a one party state. There is more than one party but, at the moment, one party has a majority and so long as its MPs obey the whip they can pass legislation without the support of the other parties.Why can passing legislation which proscribes what individual citizens may or may not do, never be legitimate? There's a mass of legislation to that effect - don't kill other people, don't drink and drive etc. etc.
And I think you'll find that opposition parties are consulted on matters such as this as a matter of convention. And they also have the opportunity to make their points in a public forum i.e. parliament, about proposed legislation before it is enacted, So their points can be picked up and reported in the media.
Just one paragraph out of many:
" Moreover, the Regulations themselves proscribe – for the first time in the history of this country
– all political gatherings and public demonstrations without exception. Even if such an
exceptional step was found (on other grounds) to be proportionate, the chilling effect it must have
on the ability of opposition to the policy to be organised and mobilised and to demonstrate publicly
weighs against a determination that restrictions of this magnitude, subject to no democratic
scrutiny for up to six months, are justifiable."
jm doc said:
I really think you are trolling, history is littered with governements passing laws which are not legitimate, often using a "crisis" to justify them. You should read the document linked previously asking for a judicial review to understand jsut how you are being led down the garden path. Obviously if you are happy to be a dupe, fine.
Just one paragraph out of many:
" Moreover, the Regulations themselves proscribe – for the first time in the history of this country
– all political gatherings and public demonstrations without exception. Even if such an
exceptional step was found (on other grounds) to be proportionate, the chilling effect it must have
on the ability of opposition to the policy to be organised and mobilised and to demonstrate publicly
weighs against a determination that restrictions of this magnitude, subject to no democratic
scrutiny for up to six months, are justifiable."
Not trolling in the slightest. But your own paragraph proves my point. If you think the legislation is illegitimate ask for the Supreme Court to adjudicate. The rule of law applies. Don't crack on about a one party state in an attempt to justify your position.Just one paragraph out of many:
" Moreover, the Regulations themselves proscribe – for the first time in the history of this country
– all political gatherings and public demonstrations without exception. Even if such an
exceptional step was found (on other grounds) to be proportionate, the chilling effect it must have
on the ability of opposition to the policy to be organised and mobilised and to demonstrate publicly
weighs against a determination that restrictions of this magnitude, subject to no democratic
scrutiny for up to six months, are justifiable."
zzrman said:
jm doc said:
So you understood what I meant about needing a governement of all parties? But you find it completely acceptable to have a one party state? As far as I'm concerned, imposing a lockdown on everyone by one political party can never be legitimate, it should always be in complete agreement with full support and involvement of all political parties. That is not the case, other parties have been excluded from discussion and debate despite concerns about the situation. It really is astonishing. Perhaps you should the link below and understand just how badly wrong many people think their approach has been.
You see to be oblivious as to how this country is run. It isn't a one party state. There is more than one party but, at the moment, one party has a majority and so long as its MPs obey the whip they can pass legislation without the support of the other parties.Why can passing legislation which proscribes what individual citizens may or may not do, never be legitimate? There's a mass of legislation to that effect - don't kill other people, don't drink and drive etc. etc.
And I think you'll find that opposition parties are consulted on matters such as this as a matter of convention. And they also have the opportunity to make their points in a public forum i.e. parliament, about proposed legislation before it is enacted, So their points can be picked up and reported in the media.
So we have the rule of law and as Breadvan has pointed out in times like these when the enforcement of the law as enacted and not as some Politician or Policeman might like it to have been enacted, needs to be scrutinised ever more carefully than usual.
Worse still is that the enabling secondary legislation (the Regulations) allows the Secretary of State to effectively rule by decree.
He has to review the restrictions every 21 days. However all he is then mandated to do is 'consider' them. Simply deciding that they are still necessary is enough for them to continue.
A government led by a man with Churchillian delusions of grandeur, aided by a bunch of spineless acolytes, and backed up by a number of Chief Constables who appear to be less than impartial.
What could possibly go wrong?
zzrman said:
If you think the legislation is illegitimate ask for the Supreme Court to adjudicate. The rule of law applies. Don't crack on about a one party state in an attempt to justify your position.
That's exactly what Wedlake Bell's proposed application is designed to do. AFAIK it would be the High Court that hears it though. The Conservatives really don't like the judiciary due to the curbs it places on their illiberal tendencies - https://www.theguardian.com/law/2020/feb/11/what-i...
They would like nothing better than to make JR go away.
zzrman said:
jm doc said:
I really think you are trolling, history is littered with governements passing laws which are not legitimate, often using a "crisis" to justify them. You should read the document linked previously asking for a judicial review to understand jsut how you are being led down the garden path. Obviously if you are happy to be a dupe, fine.
Just one paragraph out of many:
" Moreover, the Regulations themselves proscribe – for the first time in the history of this country
– all political gatherings and public demonstrations without exception. Even if such an
exceptional step was found (on other grounds) to be proportionate, the chilling effect it must have
on the ability of opposition to the policy to be organised and mobilised and to demonstrate publicly
weighs against a determination that restrictions of this magnitude, subject to no democratic
scrutiny for up to six months, are justifiable."
Not trolling in the slightest. But your own paragraph proves my point. If you think the legislation is illegitimate ask for the Supreme Court to adjudicate. The rule of law applies. Don't crack on about a one party state in an attempt to justify your position.Just one paragraph out of many:
" Moreover, the Regulations themselves proscribe – for the first time in the history of this country
– all political gatherings and public demonstrations without exception. Even if such an
exceptional step was found (on other grounds) to be proportionate, the chilling effect it must have
on the ability of opposition to the policy to be organised and mobilised and to demonstrate publicly
weighs against a determination that restrictions of this magnitude, subject to no democratic
scrutiny for up to six months, are justifiable."
Just one small example of the mendaciousness of these people, an email went out from NHSE/I on Monday which requested all primary care staff to be tested for covid by Wednesday. An extraordinary demand at such a busy time and ridiculous timescale, but most of us still managed to achieve it.
Now for what possible reason would they make such an urgent request for? The good of our health or our patients? Or to help Hancock hit his meaningless target on Thursday?
Make your own mind up.
But it didn't help me or my colleagues, most of us have had it anyway.
Edited by jm doc on Friday 1st May 23:55
jm doc said:
Why should I have to go to court to protect myself from the government. This isn't the first time in the last few months this has happened. I don't necessarily think it's conspiracy in this case, just complete and utter incompetence that's turning into panic and cover up, and that is causing catastrophic damage to the health of people and our country.
Just one small example of the mendaciousness of these people, an email went out from NHSE/I on Monday which requested all primary care staff to be tested for covid by Wednesday. An extraordinary demand at such a busy time and ridiculous timescale, but most of us still managed to achieve it.
Now for what possible reason would they make such an urgent request for? The good of our health or our patients? Or to help Hancock hit his meaningless target on Thursday?
Make your own mind up.
But it didn't help me or my colleagues, most of us have had it anyway.
Because the rule of law to which even Parliament is subject to is your one ultimate safeguard as was demonstrated before the last election when the government was trying to push their EU settlement through and the Supreme Court rules against their action,.Just one small example of the mendaciousness of these people, an email went out from NHSE/I on Monday which requested all primary care staff to be tested for covid by Wednesday. An extraordinary demand at such a busy time and ridiculous timescale, but most of us still managed to achieve it.
Now for what possible reason would they make such an urgent request for? The good of our health or our patients? Or to help Hancock hit his meaningless target on Thursday?
Make your own mind up.
But it didn't help me or my colleagues, most of us have had it anyway.
Edited by jm doc on Friday 1st May 23:55
The issue regarding the incompetence or not of the government in dealing with the virus will be decided by the electorate at a later date.
Your viewpoint on that is not enhanced by trying to justify it by reference to a "one party state'.
jm doc said:
unident said:
How do you know you’ve had it?
In the same way I have diagnosed people with the common cold or the 'flu over the last 30 years, by clinical judgement. In the case of covid, I've seen or spoken to people who have had it most days since the turn of the year. I hope I can avoid becoming one of your patients though, you seem a little too David Icke for me to have much confidence in your diagnostic skills.
jm doc said:
GC8 said:
jm dic said:
The swine flu epidemic was, unusually for flu, a complete non-event
Really? It killed a friend of mine.You must do better.
What a
You are starting to look like a dick to most here now, I think.
unident said:
Ok, you’re a doctor and a constitutional expert. Impressive.
I hope I can avoid becoming one of your patients though, you seem a little too David Icke for me to have much confidence in your diagnostic skills.
No, he’s pissed that the ones he wanted didn’t get in.I hope I can avoid becoming one of your patients though, you seem a little too David Icke for me to have much confidence in your diagnostic skills.
I believe that there are a number of people who will be unhappy with anything this government does, simply because the ones they wanted to get in did not; whether what they are doing is sensible or not.
I cannot say whether what they are doing now is appropriate or necessary because I lack the ability to go forward in time to confirm - but whilst I think it is a lot of money pissed up a wall I also believe that a judicial review wouldn’t be the worst thing in the world because the opposition have spent so long wondering what on Earth they’re going to field as opposition to their biggest defeat in years, the current government have had a free pass. A judicial review - it should also be clear - doesn’t mean anyone’s done anything wrong. It means someone wants independent validation that it is fair.
Lots of people in this world with crystal balls who seem to know how both this and the pandemic ends!
They also seem to forget that we have one of the least restrictive “lockdowns” in Western Europe...
It will be interesting to see if the mooted judicial review challenge to the Restriction Regulations goes ahead.
Note that delegated legislation can be set aside by a court, but primary legislation cannot (save in the soon to be inapplicable context of EU law).
Possible grounds for challenge -
1. The Regulations are ultra vires (beyond the powers of) the Minister who made them, by reference to the enabling powers in the 1980s public health legislation that underlies the Regulations. They should have been made under the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 or the Coronavirus Act 2020.
I earlier discounted this, but may have been too quick to do so. The extent of the civil liberties implications may support the case that the wrong enabling power has been used.
2. The Regulations are incompatible with the ECHR (NOT an EU thing), and in particular articles 5 (liberty), 8 (home and family life), 9 (religion), 11 (assembly), A1P1 (property), and A1P2 (education). If they are, this infringes the Human Rights Act 1998, to which the ECHR rights re scheduled.
Here the arguments would turn on proportionality, which is all about the balance between a legitimate aim and the means used to pursue that aim. The Government is accorded what the case law calls a "margin of appreciation" or "area of discretionary judgment".
Contrary to what is claimed in tabloid rants and in NPE, the Courts reject most ECHR challenges (and the UK wins most of its cases in the ECtHR).
The public policy implications of upholding such a challenge would be huge, and the case would undoubtedly end up in the Supreme Court. Johnson has plans to neuter the Courts, and turn them into political captives, but he hasn't yet been able to do this.
Note that delegated legislation can be set aside by a court, but primary legislation cannot (save in the soon to be inapplicable context of EU law).
Possible grounds for challenge -
1. The Regulations are ultra vires (beyond the powers of) the Minister who made them, by reference to the enabling powers in the 1980s public health legislation that underlies the Regulations. They should have been made under the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 or the Coronavirus Act 2020.
I earlier discounted this, but may have been too quick to do so. The extent of the civil liberties implications may support the case that the wrong enabling power has been used.
2. The Regulations are incompatible with the ECHR (NOT an EU thing), and in particular articles 5 (liberty), 8 (home and family life), 9 (religion), 11 (assembly), A1P1 (property), and A1P2 (education). If they are, this infringes the Human Rights Act 1998, to which the ECHR rights re scheduled.
Here the arguments would turn on proportionality, which is all about the balance between a legitimate aim and the means used to pursue that aim. The Government is accorded what the case law calls a "margin of appreciation" or "area of discretionary judgment".
Contrary to what is claimed in tabloid rants and in NPE, the Courts reject most ECHR challenges (and the UK wins most of its cases in the ECtHR).
The public policy implications of upholding such a challenge would be huge, and the case would undoubtedly end up in the Supreme Court. Johnson has plans to neuter the Courts, and turn them into political captives, but he hasn't yet been able to do this.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff