For those of you who haven't seen the full document. UP FOR REVIEW 28th SEPT. ACT NOW.
Siobhan has just uploaded this excellent leaflet. It is a really good summary of the most salient points. I'm reposting it here so more of you can see it.
SIGN THE PETITION PLEASE - and share with friends.
Attempts are being made to review the Coronavirus Act without Parliamentary scrutiny. Sir Graham Brady of the 1922 Committee and several other MPs from all parties are opposing this. Watch the following video from 29 minutes onwards then please write to Sir Graham telling him how much you support him. We need to let him know just how much support he has:
Write to Sir Graham at altsale@parliament.uk
or
Sir Graham Brady
Chair of the 1922 Committee
House of Commons
London SW1A 0AA
Please also look at other threads on this site regarding 1922 Committee. This is the best oppositon we have.
Thank you.
Well dodgy document, how exactly did they prepare 395 pages of legislation in no time at all unless it was already pre-prepared?
Also what is even more puzzling, similar (or almost identical) legislation has been enacted in many if not all European countries as well as NZ and Australia.
At present they don't seem to be using many powers given to them by the act, however it doesn’t mean it will not happen when the '2nd wave' of bullshit is finally upon us.
@Veritas Vicit - they were probably based on the WHO 'World Health Regulations 2005 which 196 countries signed into when they were drafted. I haven't read it yet but I did go through the Coronavirus regs when they were first published.
Correct V V and now we have this:
The words marketing and civil liability immunity appear a lot in this document - as well as this sentence
"Any vaccine must first go through the usual rigorous testing and development process and be shown to meet the expected high standards of safety, quality and efficacy before it can be deployed".
Are vaccines usually developed, tested, and deployed in such short timespans ? I don't think so !
@mickzen UK Column was discussing this today. They made the point that if the vaccine displays all the standards required within their normal’rigorous’ testing, then why isn’t the vaccine given approval and a licens?
I suspect it is to do with liability for if things go wrong. I have just signed the petition for repealing the Coronavirus Act, and reading the blurb with it, there is a section which removes liability from medical people/establishments when treating covid patients, or suspected covid. This is how they have got away with the Recovery trial, I guess. Apparently there were a lot of our hospitals taking part in that. That will have bumped up our. covid death tally a bit.
Thanks LivvyB for starting this one up.
I think we need to get our heads round this pretty quickly to send letters with specific questions to our MPs so that they are prepared for the debate and vote.
My first question is “ Why was this legislation necessary when CV 19 was no longer a disease of high consequence on March19th?
I understand it was facilitated from Public Health (Control of Diseases) Act 1984.
It is a substantial piece of ’emergency’ legislation, so must have had a lot of pre-planning one would think. Event 201? Sage minutes might help here
Useful: http://laworfiction.com/2020/06/sage-minutes-all-in-one-document-searchable-and-indexed/
My next set of questions would relate to the sections of the Act itself. Here I need to do some more research, but off the top of my head:
Death certificate- if CV 19 is suspected, anyone can give the official cause of death, not just medical people and no autopsy. This is perfect for those wanting an early inheritance, like the Shipman. What safeguards are there?
Health Officers - what qualifications? What protections or appeals can the members of the public have?
with the combination of these two sections alone, it sounds a recipe for a Holocaust situation. Did Deagel know about this ‘emergency’ legislation when they made their population predictions?
Will look up the specific section numbers later.
What other specifics should be highlighted? Is the health passport and vaccination stuff in this legislation?
Excellent post Siobhan. I could not agree more.
From gov.uk
Corony is not a high consequence infectious disease
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/high-consequence-infectious-diseases-hcid
Nice one Siobhan - had heard about this but didn't have the link before. Thanks
Started to look quickly through the sections of the Act.
s.11 Indemnity for Health Service
This bit may be the cover for the Recovery trials and failure to use prophylaxis of HCQ, and early treatment protocols. Hence increasing hospitalisation and deaths.
s.18 Regitration of deaths
s.19 Confirmatory medical certification for cremation not required
Both are detail in Schedule 13
s.30 Suspension of inquests with jury
Schedule 8 refers to Mental Health
Schedule 21 gives powers to deal with potentially infectious persons.
This is how the health officers may come into being and ask people to go to assessment centres, etc.
There are specifics for the devolved nations, which I haven’t looked at. Do note there is something about vaccinations in Scotland, but not explicitly for other areas.
There is stuff about Judicial review and some other legal stuff.
What else have people seen in this Act that should be highlighted?
There is so much, I hardly know where to start. Most people don't even know about it and you're one if the few people I know who has actually read it! The main thing is it was passed without debate due to emergency measures. We would argue there was no emergency - the science didn't warrant it etc etc.
When I challenged him on it, my MP told me it was only temporary and I had to point out the clause which states it can be renewed at any time. I haven't seen this confirmed but someone said it's up for renewal in September. Anyone know anything about this and whether or not it well be debated?
Big Brother Watch has produced some helpful reports on the Coronvirus Act and other regulations - see the Emergency Powers section of their website https://bigbrotherwatch.org.uk/campaigns/emergency-powers/#introduction
I am currently reading the consultation to the Human Medicine Regs and I've had a look at the website for responding to the consultation https://consultations.dhsc.gov.uk/5f43b8aca0980b6fc0198f9f
It's not an easy document to respond to, so needs a lot of research and thought. Hopefully, we can use this thread to help share ideas on the most appropriate evidence to submit.
Excellent Di - I was wondering how to respond to the consultation. Also thanks for the new info - will check it out - lots to read!!
Do you think it's worth starting a new thread just on the consultation and responses or shall we keep it here? I'm always concerned threads get lost and go down the list and less people see them.
To save time on reading, there are recommendations to send to MPs from page 6 onwards of this Big Brother Watch report https://bigbrotherwatch.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Emergency-Powers-and-Civil-Liberties-Report-JULY-2020.pdf
You're right, things do get lost so a new thread is probably sensible for the consultation and responses.
Thanks Di - I'll do that.
Just looking over the Parliamentary diary.
https://calendar.parliament.uk/calendar/Commons/All/2020/9/7/Daily
Monday has something:
Third Delegated Legislation Committee - Oral evidence The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) (No.3) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 750)
(at 4:30 pm)
Location: Room 9, Palace of Westminster
Does anyone have information about this?
Good work Soibhan - just writing to my MP now and need to send it before Monday.
Here is a link to the SI
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/750/contents
Quickly reviewing some it, it is to do with premises and events.
Also on Friday it’s Private Members Bill day.
This is listed:
Private Members' Bills
Coronavirus Inquiry Bill: Second Reading - Sir Edward Davey
What do we know about this?
For those in Scotland look over the diary for this week as there are a couple of review sessions.
There are also one or two ’impact of coronavirus on ...’ debates
Some more info on the Private Members Bill
https://services.parliament.uk/bills/2019-21/coronavirusinquiry.html
The Bill has not been published, but I have emailed Sir Davey for details.
Got it!
I’ve been reading some more about this Act.
Part 2 talks about its duration and such like.
It has been enacted to last 2 years, with Parliamentary review every 6 months.
The Act was brought into force on 25th March. Not all the sections have to be applied and many can be suspended and re-established multiple times.
Looking at Schedule 21 - the Health Officers bit that can mean you might end up at an assessment centre, also refers to Regulations brought in on 10th February 2020
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/129/pdfs/uksi_20200129_en.pdf
There is a lot to get heads round
For those writing to their MPs, asking them to withdraw the support for these Corona measures, here is an interesting article. - words and definitions matter and back in January Fauci had his name on a paper that predicted CV19 would be no worse that a bad flu season.
Remember that any restrictions to our rights should be proportionate. What is happening to our freedoms is definitely not proportionate to the risks to public health.
Wonder what it means that the act was signed in Feb 2020 🤔
The Feb thing is a Statutory Instrument.
It is drawn up by Ministers, from powers given in other Acts. In this case the 1984 Control of disease act.
A statutory instrument is only laid before Parliament to have a quick read through if members wish to, and objections can be made. I think a lot don’t get read though.
The Coronavirus Act 2020 is a piece of primary legislation which should be debated in both Houses and voted on. However, with this Act I don’t believe this has happened. Well, I know there wasn’t a vote.
I can understand the government introducing the SI in Feb, as we were just finding out about the Wuhan stuff. Form a quick look, it seems similar to Schedule 21 of CV Act 2020. Note the terminology for the virus. In Feb it was referred to as Wuhan coronavirus.
However, when you see that Fauci had his name on a paper in January that predicted this to be like a bad seasonal flu, .......
I’ve been looking at the SAGE minutes for March, but haven’t finished it all yet. Trying to see how we go from making the virus no longer a high consequent infectious disease to lockdown in 4 days
Have a read of this...KBF supporters clearly think that democracy has been replaced by technocracy. https://www.keepbritainfree.com/forum/activism/have-decisions-in-the-past-six-months-been-taken-democratically-or-illogically-kbf-life-post-covid-survey-findings