To see this working, head to your live site.

Edited: Jul 25, 2020

MP response to KBF template letter

I wrote to my MP, slightly amending the KBF template to include that I had told local shops that I would not be using them if they enforced mask wearing. Have just got this reply - it has a lot of words in it:) Am wondering whether she read her job description!

'Dear

Thank you for taking the time to write to xxxx MP with regard to the Government’s decision to mandate the wearing of face coverings in certain situations, and to raise your more general concern over government powers.

xxx has read your email with interest and has asked me to respond to you on her behalf.

With regard to Government powers – xxx would not support any government that unilaterally handed itself powers and is clear that any response to a global pandemic, particularly one involving a novel virus to which there is no known vaccine and no known treatment demanded that action be taken. Parliament retains its rights of scrutiny through its elected representatives, the House of Lords and the activities of a range of powerful committees. The decisions taken by the Government have each been considered and expert advice taken throughout – which xxx believes is precisely as it should. xxx makes her voice heard on behalf of all of her constituents both in Parliament and via the other channels she has available to her and will continue to do so.

With regard to the mandatory wearing of face coverings – xxx is clear that there is a need to balance the competing demands of protecting civil liberties and controlling the spread of the virus whilst enabling the restoration of economic and social life. xx’s colleagues in Government have made a judgement that the best way to balance these things is to enable people to go out and about, and to see and socialise with friends and family, but to require that, if they choose to do so, they take additional measures to restrict the spread of this virus by wearing face coverings in limited situations.

The science in this area has evolved during the outbreak, and the body of scientific evidence that has now built up shows that the risk of transmission is made lower by wearing a face covering.

The UK’s Royal Society, for example, recently reviewed all the evidence and came to the conclusion that face coverings are effective for protecting the wearer of the face covering as well as those around them, though note the covering needs to be of a certain standard.

Significantly, recently the World Health Organisation changed their advice, (WHO), by saying that whilst the virus is primarily spread through contact and respiratory droplets, under some circumstance airborne transmission might occur, the WHO go on to advise the use of fabric masks, (face coverings), to reduce the spread of infection.

This increasing evidence, but also the new evidence that sales and retail staff were being more severely affected by the virus than the general population, supported the decision that from 24 July it became mandatory to wear a face covering when visiting a shop or supermarket. Previously this requirement was advisory. There are of course some exceptions, for example the rules do not apply to children under 11.

The full guidance on the wearing of face coverings can be found here.

There will be a wide spread public health communications campaign within which it will be made clear that social distancing, good hygiene and isolating when infected or having symptoms, also remain important mitigating actions.

Your point that this decision will reduce the number of people going out is not a view that is shared by those advising the Government. Perhaps more importantly people need to go shopping and for those who are most at risk it is quite right that steps are taken to protect them, and also to reassure them that they can be safe when they go out.

xxx recognises that this decision is not one you welcome, but she is confident that there is now enough evidence to suggest that the wearing of face coverings in certain situations will help stop those with the virus from giving it to others, and for that reason she supports this decision. The Government has noted that it will keep all guidelines under constant review to ensure that any restrictions in place are worthwhile measures – where that is shown not to be the case the measure will be considered and potentially changed.

Thank you again for raising these important matters with xxx, with regard to face coverings, she will stay abreast of the latest evidence so that she can raise local concerns with her colleagues as appropriate.

I hope you remain safe and well at this very difficult time.

With kind regards'

53 comments

53 Comments

Peter G

Sep 16, 2020

Just simply plunge some money into the courtcases against lockdown, share it as much as possible and attend protests. The more people, the bigger chance of success!

Salsa

Sep 16, 2020

Time to concentrate in dismantling Agenda 21. Councils very much involved in all this. There is a page in the UN website - I will try and get the link - about Genocide. I now think it is time to use this against our MPs and Local Councils. I don't know if anyone has had chance to read the Agenda 21 document on Ukcolumn - 43 pages of it! but it seems, apart from using the genocide issue, the only thing standing in the way of abolishing private property etc is our Magna Carta. According to Ukcolumn on Monday, the UK is intentionally being split up - so how does this affect our Magna Carta rights if we are no longer a United Kingdom? Anybody know how we can find this out? Whatever the answer, we must find a way to stop all this. Last year life was so simple - now we are literally fighting for our lives, thanks to that Atheist, Nature Hating creep by the name of Gates!

Sep 16, 2020

My useless MP hasn't replied to any of the 3 emails I sent him. Can't imagine he's actually busy! 🙄

Peter G

Sep 15, 2020

Time for diplomacy is up, now it's the time for action. We need to stop funding them. No more council tax pays, no more tax pays, workers need to go strike if they are required to wear a face nappy, we all need to support the legal actions taken against this government and please attend the protest. Standupx.info

Stay sane !

And by the way LivvyB. I was deepthroating every sentence ! Well done. Keep the pressure, might convince one or two people in the local offices, because like Matt Wancock said in clash with Julia Hartley-Brewer when challenged about the graphs, he simply replied: "Well, that's not true!" If I could, at that moment I would put my arm through the phone he was on and snap his neck. He is so drunk with that power, it's beyond sick.

MG55

Sep 15, 2020

PLEASE everyone - can you take 4 mins out of your day to respond to the UK Govt plans to vaxx us all with an unlicensed vaxx that will have zero liability to anyone involved if it cripples you?

You can simply cut n paste all of the answers the ANHI has put together below into the Govt response if u dont have time to do the research. (The Govt response link is in here too).

ANHI have made it easy for you to do.

This is so concerning. We need as many people to respond as possible or they will just say we all consented:

DEADLINE is Sept 18th so please can you do it ASAP??? 😀💕

https://www.anhinternational.org/news/uk-law-changes-for-covid-19-mass-vaccination/?utm_source=The%20Alliance%20for%20Natural%20Health&utm_campaign=707f1c2d7c-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2020_09_10_09_40&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_aea8a87544-707f1c2d7c-85021318&fbclid=IwAR1xJGypKLXQEe03oGA2wnSsFdj-B8KieeKQV38gqTkLehKDIZ0LbvKJFls

If we dont all do this the Govt will turn around and say we all consented.

Thankyou 🙏

funtimefranky77

Sep 15, 2020

Replying to

I've been posting this video everywhere in the hope of waking people up to the truth that humans cannot catch or spread viruses, they can only catch or spread bacterial germs.

This is the smoking gun that can stop the government in their tracks. The content of the video cannot be debunked and no scientist on the planet can or will challenge, dispute or refute it including SAGE.

This video is the 'smoking gun' that proves the COVID 19 virus lie, makes a complete and utter mockery of the W.H.O's 'pandemic' and the governments reasons for implementing lockdown, social distancing and mask wearing…

This means they cannot force you to have a vaccination without your consent because the video scientifically proves there is no virus to spread and so no virus to vaccinate against.

I urge you to watch this 2 minute video and share it as much as possible. People need to know that the government and/or SAGE would have to irrefutably prove this scientific evidence wrong before they can force vaccinations, and they won't be able to do it because it's natural science.

Sep 16, 2020

Replying to

Done. Let's hold the f*ckers to account!

Hollbsma

Sep 14, 2020

Sent a further letter to my MP in response to her c**p reply at start of thread, based on Livvy B's excellent draft re standards of research etc & specifically asking for information on the scrutiny applied to Statutory Instruments. Her response is below. I've replied asking whether she wants to have another crack at it before it goes on social media & offering her a further 7 days in case the SI question is too tricky. In the meantime ...

Thank you again for writing to xxx with regard to the Government’s decisions with regard to the wearing of face coverings. xxx has read your response to our previous email and has asked me to thank you for taking the time to provide such a full response. You will know that xxx has a scientific background and is thoroughly versed in the principles of evidence based approaches. The initial research on face coverings / masks is provided here. As you will know the Government takes advice from a wide range of advisors and the minutes of all meetings they hold and all evidence provided to those meetings is all published as a matter of routine. Further that the evidence is changing week-on-week as more is found out about the virus. Clearly as a novel virus, there were no peer reviewed journals, no randomised controls, limited real world analysis, and there remains no absolute consensus on what the “right’ decision is in any particular situation. However, what has become clear is that a mixture of mitigation strategies, social distancing plus good hand hygiene plus wearing face coverings for example, has been shown to have some efficacy in reducing transmission of the virus. This is precisely the approach taken by the Government and supported by xxx. As further evidence becomes available the Government’s approach may change to meet that evidence should it be felt helpful to do so. You make the point that none of the mitigation strategies being used by this Government, and indeed Government’s around the world, might be worthwhile, i.e. may not have any benefit, because the evidence being used does not conform to “gold standards”. This question is best answered by the fact that Government adapts its approach based on the best available evidence provided to it by some of the UK’s leading experts in a range of fields. This evidence is recognised as being just that –the best available at a point in time. xxx feels this is the right approach in seeking to manage the transmission of infections in the face of a virus, which through the fact it is novel necessarily means there is limited “gold standard” evidence available to support each decision made. Thank you again for returning to this important subject. With kind regards