Help me go after the MPs that didn't vote!

Just received a late but polite reply - still missing the point - but with option to respond back:

Correspondence from Gareth Thomas MP (Case Ref: GT42953) Inbox Gareth Thomas MP <gareth.thomas.mp@parliament.uk>2:23 PM (1 hour ago) to me Dear Michael Georcelin Thank you for contacting me about the renewal of the Coronavirus Act 2020 (the Act). I am sorry for not responding to your email sooner, my office has been experiencing unprecedented levels of correspondence owing to the Coronavirus crisis, which has unfortunately slowed my response. Please accept my apologies for any inconvenience caused.  As you know, the first six-month review of the Act took place on the 30th September 2020 when the renewal of the temporary provisions within the Act was approved. I appreciate this legislation contains some of the most draconian powers ever seen in peacetime Britain. Sadly, we have now seen over 48,000 deaths in the UK; lives altered in ways unimaginable a year ago, and our economy facing one of the worst recessions on record. I accept the challenge that presents, and I recognise that in a pandemic any government needs extraordinary powers available. With a heavy heart, facing the highly unsatisfactory situation of an all-or-nothing motion brought before the House of Commons on the 30th  September, I did not vote to block its passage. I worked closely with my colleagues in Parliament to scrutinise this legislation when it was introduced in March to ensure that any exercise of executive power or administrative action is measured against human rights and common-law standards. These include necessity, proportionality, rationality, fairness, and non-discrimination. Nevertheless, I understand the concerns you raise about the lack of parliamentary scrutiny since the Act came into force, and I can assure you I am supporting calls for greater scrutiny and accountability. With such strong powers available, the need for accountability is even more important than in ordinary times. I am therefore pleased that in response to pressure, the Government announced that, where possible, Parliament will be consulted on any future significant measures that take effect across the whole of England or the UK. I also share the concerns that have been raised about schedule 21 of the Act, which gives public health officers, constables, and immigration officers the power to take action against potentially infectious persons. It is deeply concerning that this provision has so far been used for 141 prosecutions, all of which were found to be unlawful when reviewed. Additionally, I believe the term ‘potentially infectious persons’ is unclear and could include anybody. I firmly believe this provision must be looked at again. The Government must also be more transparent and accountable by outlining and explaining the use of schedule 21 powers every month. The Government must, in my view, commit to publishing a monthly review of any disproportionate impact of the Act on individuals or groups and give Parliament the time to debate and hold votes on regulatory changes. If you would like to discuss your concerns about the Act or the new lockdown measures now in force, please let me know. Thank you once again for contacting me about this important issue. I fully appreciate how crucial this matter is and I respect there are strongly held views for and against renewing this legislation. I assure you I will continue to hold the Government to account and ensure that this emergency legislation is kept under regular review. Yours sincerely  Gareth Thomas MP Harrow West House of Commons, London, SW1A 0AA Tel: 020 7219 4243 Email: gareth.thomas.mp@parliament.uk Twitter: @GarethThomasMP Facebook: www.facebook.com/GarethThomasMP Website: www.gareththomas.org.uk P Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this email? Sign up to receive my e-mails covering the local response to the COVID-19 pandemic. https://www.gareththomas.org.uk/news/2020/03/16/coronavirus-updates/

Just received this from Speaker of the House as he was no the list of non-voters:

Rt Hon Sir Lindsay Hoyle MP <hoylel@parliament.uk> to me Many thanks for your e-mail regarding the Coronavirus Act 2020. I have received numerous e-mails on this subject combined with e-mails regarding the amendments proposed to the Act. I fully understand people’s concerns over the extraordinary powers currently used by the government in response to the Covid-19 outbreak and the restriction this places on our civil liberties. These measures do not sit comfortably with me and should only be in place for the absolute minimum time necessary. Unfortunately as Speaker of the House of Commons I can not vote on legislation but I firmly believe that such measures should be debated fully and the government should ensure that Parliament is always allowed time to debate and approve such measures.  Whilst I was unable to take the amendments proposed ahead of the debate (for the reasons outlined below) I was keen to express my concern about the government’s actions and help bring about a shift in the government’s approach. Regards Rt Hon Sir Lindsay Hoyle MP “I wish to make a statement about this House’s scrutiny of delegated powers during the pandemic, and on the selection of amendments to the motion relating to the Coronavirus Act 2020 later today. The way in which the Government have exercised their powers to make secondary legislation during this crisis has been totally unsatisfactory. All too often, important statutory instruments have been published a matter of hours before they come into force, and some explanations why important measures have come into effect before they can be laid before this House have been unconvincing; this shows a total disregard for the House. The Government must make greater efforts to prepare measures more quickly, so that this House can debate and decide upon the most significant measures at the earliest possible point. The use of made affirmative statutory instruments under the urgency procedure gives rise to particular concern. I will give very sympathetic consideration to applications for urgent questions or emergency debates in such cases, requiring Ministers to come to the Dispatch Box to justify the use of such powers. I hope that all hon. Members will have a chance to express their views through substantive amendable motions on scrutiny of delegated powers, or on the operation of the Coronavirus Act 2020, or both. I turn now to the motion to be considered later today, which invites the House to make a narrow, binary choice as to whether the temporary provisions of the Coronavirus Act 2020 should or should not expire. Unfortunately, as it is only a 90-minute debate as a proceeding under an Act under Standing Order No. 16, I am disappointed that I cannot give additional time to discuss the issues. I know some Members will be disappointed. When I became Speaker, I made it clear that I would take decisions on matters relating to procedure guided by professional advice. I have concluded, on the basis of advice that I have received, that any amendment to the motion before the House risks giving rise to uncertainty about the decision the House has taken. This then risks decisions that are rightly the responsibility of Parliament ultimately being determined by the courts. Lack of clarity in such important matters risks undermining the rule of law. I have therefore decided not to select any of the amendments to the motion.” ________________________________________ From: Speaker's Office Sent: 12 October 2020 09:32 To: HOYLE, Lindsay Subject: FW: Our disappointment in you not voting One of the signatories of this email is from Chorley – happy to handle here but thought you might want to reply? Let me know either way. Ta, Kate

More to read on Dr. Reiner Fuellmich and Crimes against Humanity https://neonnettle.com/news/12868-lawyers-suing-who-for-crimes-against-humanity-over-covid-lockdowns

Guys, here is another reply to ponder over. "How hard they tried", Notice what abstaining gained from the government. I have highlighted the key word in italics and bold and underlined Jesus wept. **Warning** do NOT read this before you go to bed if you want a good night's sleep.

Thank you for contacting me about the renewal of the Coronavirus Act 2020 (the Act).

As you know, the first six-month review of the Act took place on 30 September 2020 when the renewal of the temporary provisions within the Act was approved.

This legislation contains some of the most draconian powers ever seen in peacetime Britain. I worked closely with my colleagues in Parliament to scrutinise this legislation when it was introduced in March to ensure that any exercise of executive power or administrative action is measured against human rights and common-law standards. These include necessity, proportionality, rationality, fairness, and non-discrimination.

We have seen over 42,000 deaths in the UK, lives altered in ways unimaginable a year ago, and our economy facing one of the worst recessions on record. I accept the challenge that presents, and I recognise that in a pandemic any government needs extraordinary powers available. With a heavy heart, facing the highly unsatisfactory situation of an all-or-nothing motion brought before the House of Commons on 30 September, I did not vote to block its passage.

Nevertheless, I understand the concerns raised about the lack of parliamentary scrutiny since the Act came into force, and I can assure you I am supporting calls for greater scrutiny and accountability.

With such strong powers available, the need for accountability is even more important than in ordinary times. I am therefore pleased that in response to pressure, the Government announced that, where possible, Parliament will be consulted on any future significant measures that take effect across the whole of England or the UK.

I also share the concerns that have been raised about schedule 21 of the Act, which gives public health officers, constables, and immigration officers the power to take action against potentially infectious persons. It is deeply concerning that this provision has so far been used for 141 prosecutions, all of which were found to be unlawful when reviewed. Additionally, I believe the term “potentially infectious persons” is unclear and could include anybody. I firmly believe this provision must be looked at again. The Government must also be more transparent and accountable by outlining and explaining the use of schedule 21 powers every month.

The Government must, in my view, commit to publishing a monthly review of any disproportionate impact of the Act on individuals or groups and give Parliament the time to debate and hold votes on regulatory changes.

Thank you once again for contacting me about this important issue. I assure you I will continue to hold the Government to account and ensure that this emergency legislation is kept under regular review.

Yours sincerely,

Guys, check this out for an automatic response I got fro one of the MPs. Maybe they forgot that the Covid HCID status had been downgraded on the 19 of March to regular flu:

Thank you for your email. This email confirms your correspondence has been received. I receive a large number of emails and letters each day and you will receive a response to your query as soon as possible. COVID-19 COVID-19 represents the largest and most serious public health emergency in modern history. As such I am receiving a significant amount of correspondence on this issue. My team and I are endeavouring to reply as quickly as possible. In the meantime you can find some information on my website https://www.brandonlewis.co/coronavirus-advice. You can also find information and full Governmental guidance on the following Government Website: https://www.gov.uk/coronavirus CONSTITUENTS Please note that you will need to provide your full name and address. If you do not provide this or if you are not a constituent of Great Yarmouth, you will not receive a response and will need to contact your own MP. To check whether or not you are a constituent, please visit www.writetothem.com SECRETARY OF STATE FOR NORTHERN IRELAND My parliamentary office can only deal with queries in relation to my role as Member of Parliament for Great Yarmouth. If your email relates to my role as the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland your query will be redirected to sos.lewis@nio.gov.uk. Please use this address for future correspondence.

Mickey,I can't open your list. I only have a phone so maybe that's why. Please can you tell me if Douglas Ross Tory MP and Ruth Davidson Tory MSP voted against the extension . Sorry for asking but I am away to write to them and would like to be informed of their stance when vote happened

Thanks

Below is a response just received (I think a cop out):

I spoke against the Act and outlined how I believed at the very minimum the Government should be doing ie ensuring that any proposal which Ministers now brought forward should be subject to a separate vote in the House of Commons. Admittedly this was a compromise position insofar as it was not going to be possible to get people to actively vote against the Act itself, but we wanted to minimise the support which the Government had for the extension. As it turned out they did not even get all of their own Party and got none of the opposition Parties supporting it. Most of us abstained and that abstention is now being interpreted as not giving ascent to the measures. The Minister had to agree that he would bring measures before Parliament in future for a vote and that is where I believe we can stop the most extreme decisions by Ministers around coronavirus, though as I pointed out in my speech, not every action which he takes will be brought before the House and that is a huge deficiency in the promise which he has made.

My own preference would have been to actually vote against the Act but had this been the only option then I think that many of those who did in the end abstain would have voted for the extension giving the Government even more authority to carry out some of the mad policies which they have engaged in. By ensuring that no-one on the opposition side actually walked through the lobby in favour of the Act and indeed some Conservatives abstained or voted against I think that has been the best way of sending a warning shot over the bows of Ministers who in my view have still got freedom destroying and economy destroying plans up their sleeves and are meekly caving in to their advisers who are now coronavirus obsessed.

We had hoped that there we would be able to get amendments down to the Act which would have taken away the harshest parts of the provisions but unfortunately the Speaker ruled that no amendments were allowed so it was a clear choice between either voting against, abstaining or voting for.

I can assure you that as I have done every week in the House of Commons, I will be speaking against the measures which Ministers are taking, will vote against them and I think that when the opportunity arises I will be seeking to influence the public to raise their opposition to these unnecessary attacks on our freedoms.

I hope this explains my position.

Mickey

I had this though, I dont have many so I had better share it!!

This is my thought. Sinceyou are dealing with MP issues en-mass so to speak, I wondered about the value of asking every one of them to provide proof that the Coronavirus has actually passed any test (koch postultes etc). If we sent these letters requesting proof and received hundreds of either excuses or no answer at all, this could be used in the legal context to prove that the virus does not exist or that it has not been classified.

Hi, Put me down - MP= Beth Winter Cynon Taf

Excellent Mickey - I will send you some names and constituencies tomorrow. I will also amend your template and write to them all separately. Your spreadsheet is fantastic. Don't suppose you have one for all those who voted for? The ones who voted against are easy as there are so few. I really think we should congratulate and offer up our complete support to those who voted against.

I know some on this site disagree, but I think letter wrting to MPs and other organisations is an important form of activisem - and will carry on regardless.

Thanks again for this.