Written By Michael Newland
A government decides one day to imprison the entire population. This is greeted with genuine adulation by much of the population and few dare to dissent. If you wrote a story like it then it would seem very far-fetched. Much of the population is hailing their own incarceration as though it were something to celebrate – ‘our’ NHS, ‘our’ police state.
Now you might suppose for such a thing to happen in a mature democracy it would require for extraordinary emergency powers to be adopted, and maybe a law to be passed amid much debate in parliament and in the media. In fact, none of this happened in the case of Britain.
The virus lockdown regulations imprisoning us all are not a part of the Coronavirus Act. They were introduced as routine changes to health and other rules which ministers can make without needing legislation. Think of changing charges for parking fines or some such. It gets worse. Under the rules a policeman or PCSO can force you to go home if you venture from your cell without requiring to arrest or having any evidence. There are no checks and balances and there is no appeal. Incidentally, the High Court decided recently that imprisonment does not mean that you never be let out. Curfews and so on constitute imprisonment.
If you read about this happening in some foreign country in a history book you’d think – well what would you think? Brainwashed population living in a police state.
When the new regime was introduced the key manoeuvre was to prepare the way by provoking panic. The pretend independent mainstream media has done sterling work on that I think you’d agree. Anyone dissenting, as the current government well understood, would be dubbed as not caring if people died. So there was virtual silence as what amounts to a police state was introduced by a stroke of a pen.
Give them any power and they’ll misuse it. Did the appropriately dated Public Health Act of 1984 – the ‘enabling act’ – which it’s claimed entitled the Government to imprison us as a routine ‘delegated power’ really allow or envisage something like this? There is now substantial legal opinion that it did not. A businessman is bringing a case for judicial review of the entire lockdown and being represented by Field Court Chambers which recently published a paper on the subject. The core of it is that the lockdown conflicts with human rights.
Now things get even more interesting. The Government does seem to have legal power to imprison us all but it has to declare a state of emergency in order to restrict our civil rights under the Civil Contingencies Act passed by the sainted Tony Blair. But Johnson’s government did not do this. They treated national imprisonment as a ROUTINE ADMINISTRATIVE MEASURE! Think about that for a moment and its implications for the future. The hurdle as to what government can do repressing its own people has been massively lowered and a precedent set unless a legal challenge succeeds.
This is not a question about the wisdom of a lockdown in itself. It’s about what degree of dictatorial power a government in this country now has under existing laws.
You may ask why Johnson did not announce a state of emergency and use the relevant laws. As Lord Hoffman said somewhere, if a government wishes to take away civil rights it should face the matter squarely and bear the political consequences. Why did it not? There are considerable checks and balances under the emergency laws which don’t exist along the route the Government has taken. Also declaring a formal emergency tends to imply that the government has failed if things have reached that pretty pass. Not good for the image. As things are there is a serious problem but a routine one so just obey your orders and everything is in hand.
Anyone who thinks that the current caper will never be repeated needs a little more experience. All it needs in future as things stand is for some pretext to be contrived and even your basic freedom to move around can be taken away at any time without even a debate in parliament.
Will the legal challenge succeed? Probably not since the courts tend to give way to politics. But it’s vitally important that the public grasps the enormity of what has occurred. If government wishes to do this kind of thing again it must be made politically unacceptable without a formal declaration of an emergency instead of the stealthy means employed by Johnson which are entirely in character. This was not what was done in WWI or WWII. There were formal laws passed introducing removal of civil rights.
The craven acceptance of mass imprisonment without trial by the entire political and media class when the lockdown was started bodes ill for our futures and should tell you just how rotten the system is. Among the regulations is effectively a ban on political meetings and demonstrations – a proceeding which, incidentally, has been declared unconstitutional in Germany under their laws.
People ask how societies succumb to dictatorship. Well we’ve just experienced a taste of it. And all too many cheered. People speak of freedom dying with a whimper. Let’s have a party.
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) announced this week a review of all charges, convictions, and sentences under the coronavirus act after several reports of wrongful convictions. Politicians and civil liberties groups have criticised British forces for their draconian policing and crackdown on citizens’ free movement about the country.
Breitbart
Well done to all .
What is HM Opposition for ? to represent the vested interests of public sector unions ?
Why are MPs (let alone the vermin in ermine) drawing pay and rations ?
We’ve lost our liberty a long time ago. The lockdown itself is not a great loss of liberty. We lost our liberty when the government nationalized roads, public spaces, transport, healthcare etc. That was the original sin and if you want something to protest against, protest against that. Now that the government owns the roads, it is totally within its rights to forbid anyone using them, which isn’t much different from banning people leaving their properties. That’s what any owner is entitled to do. Make no mistake, if roads were privately owned, many owners would do the same because of the pandemic. Also, if we were living in a real free society, our life, limb, liberty and property would be respected. We’d have the right not to be attacked with biological agents by others & we would be entitled to defend that right and to bring private prosecutions against those who deliberately infect others especially if this results in injury or death. Infecting someone with a deadly pathogen inflicts an involuntary externality on them, and a free society provides compensation and penalties for such activity – lesser ones if done accidentally, greater if deliberately. Because of such laws, people who are sick, or who might be sick, would stay at home during pandemics, resulting in a voluntary form of a lockdown. I’m not going to suggest enforced lockdown is the same, but it’s also not true that virus-carrying idiots being able to roam around freely without fear of repercussions, to spit into nurse’s faces, lick handlebars on the underground, and without anyone else having the ability to defend themselves (if someone coughs in your face and you punch them, you’ll be the one to go to prison), is not liberty either – indeed, it may mean less freedom than having a lockdown. The current lockdown it too draconian and unnecessary. Had the government quarantined the borders in January, there would never have been a lockdown. Two measures are required and perhaps enough – seal the border, with anyone coming in going into mandatory 14 day quarantine, and wear masks in public. All the rest of the lockdown is probably unnecessary and ineffective. But the very two measures that could do some good, have been studiously ignored.
“But the very two measures that could do some good, have been studiously ignored”. Didn’t we know all along that Govt’s ONLY aim to advance the globalist agenda, not to serve the welfare of its citizens. Mass invasion and creating a totalitarian state are part if this.
It’s the elephant in the room Mary.
Indeed Mary and they will have gained confidence through the submission of many to their current antics.
What do you mean “We lost our liberty when the government nationalized roads, public spaces, transport, healthcare etc.”? What a load of twaddle. Roads and public spaces have always been the property of the State through municipal authorities, and this is the case in both Europe and (even) the USA. Furthermore, before healthcare in Great Britain was “nationalised” (ie. socialised), it was, inevitably, something that the wealthy could reliably afford. the fact that all these were owned by the State has no relationship to any loss of freedom. I doubt that many people would even claim that the current privatised public transport is any more desirable than when it was nationalised.
You appear to have overlooked the fact that Great Britain has a Tory government and a capitalist economy.
LAWS THAT ARE NOT KEPT TO, ARE RUBBISH ! – Also when Coronavirus struck, Government brought in professionals in that field !
The first duty of Government is to keep the people safe ! – Also with this problem, the rights of the people need to be kept to also !
Medical professionals are necessary, and it can be argued that they are primary ! – A state of emergency must also be declared by Government, as temporary change will be required to peoples rights, for their own good ! – Police will be required to enforce such requirements !
There has indeed been an error of Government for not declaring a state of emergency, which would legitimise the Lockdown, as well as to accept the temporary powers of the Police ! – SO WHY WERE LEGAL PROFESSIONAL NOT BROUGHT IN ?
I prefer to think that PM Johnson’s thoughts were, that the people would see the requirement as being obvious, and so no dramatic declaration would be necessary ! – What worries me is that no one on the Party’s side in the Commons, or in the Cabinet, had the foresight to put forward proposal of this, and to so get things in the right order !
Actions taken against Coronavirus is a separate matter, and will be picked over again and again post pandemic in the Commons. – Party advantage will be sort in such debates as usual, within the luxury of hindsight !
….. This makes me remember my time as a Union Shop Steward, with a most surprising ability for looking after the rights of my members. – That ability came from my study of employment law, and particularly the contract of employment held by my members in that Multi-National Company. – My opposing Management were surprisingly ignorant of those laws, making my job easier in gaining advantage and success ! – Now if a nobody like myself can do this correctly, WHY HAS GOVERNMENT SLIPPED UP ?
Errr. The difference is we can vote Boris out in a few years if things work out badly.
I ‘spect Farage will still be about to vote for in one guise or another.
I have just written again to my MP. I append here the final paragraphs from my letter.
“It is my considered opinion that parliament no longer exists to serve the people. Rather it is the other way around! With the iniquitous 5 year fixed term Parliaments; the increasingly dictatorial stance of those who have the capacity to exert ‘power’ over the people; and the refusal of politicians to acknowledge any fault or mismanagement in their activities, the concept of the ‘Mother of Parliaments’ has degenerated into a self serving free-for-all. One must now speculate, how long will it be before Parliament seizes ‘absolute power’ and decides to cancel any remaining semblance to democracy altogether?
The Orwellian prospect of loss of freedoms that generations of Britains have enjoyed and taken for granted is a frightening prospect. Government has brought the Country to a state of abject fear. It sits very ill with a people who have a history of determination and a “stiff upper lip” attitude to adversity.
The current Government in no way resembles the ‘conservative’ ethos that has characterised other previous administrations. Rather, it begins to display all the attributes of the worst of the tyrannical fascist regimes that recent history has produced. Governing by fear and draconian edict has never ended well.“
Be prepared to have your bank account mysteriously frozen, or to loose your job, or that 2am knock at the door.
Then it will indubitably be QED!!!
I carry two pieces of printed paper with me when I go out these days. I haven’t yet had to show them to a police constable. This is what the first one says:
Swearing allegiance to the Crown
“I do solemnly and sincerely declare and affirm that I will well and truly serve the Queen in the office of constable, with fairness, integrity, diligence and impartiality, upholding fundamental human rights and according equal respect to all people; and that I will, to the best of my power, cause the peace to be kept and preserved and prevent all offences against people and property; and that while I continue to hold the said office I will to the best of my skill and knowledge discharge all the duties thereof faithfully according to law.”
Constable:
Here, today, are you standing under your oath? Do you understand your oath?
My thought is, if a constable screws up that piece of paper I offer a second one:
NOTICE
The Office of Constable
Since modern policing began in 1829 there have been fundamental principles that defined the function and purpose of policing. These principles have evolved over the years, but the basics and core objectives have stood the passage of time.
You know already that the first principles were introduced by Sir Robert Peel. As Home Secretary, he introduced several important reforms of British criminal law, most memorably establishing the Metropolitan Police Force (Metropolitan Police Act 1829). His most memorable principle was: “The police are the public, and the public are the police.”
(Extracted from The Office of Constable – published by the Police Federation of England and Wales).
BUT, Constable, do you know ……?
The Queen can give Royal Assent in person, but this has not happened since 1854. The Queen’s agreement to give her assent to a Bill is a formality. (www.parliament.uk) Royal Assent.
The authority of law is determined not by The Queen’s consent, but by Lords Commissioner’s consent, who are also Privy Counsellors – appointed to advise the Queen in carrying out her duties. This is done with or without the consent of the people and, mostly, without their understanding of the lies being enacted.
COMMON LAW in this country is determined by the consent of the people, and anything purporting to be ‘law’ in contradiction of this IS NOT LAW but mere statute.
In other words, the ‘law’ you have given your oath to uphold is not lawful without the consent of the people, in just the same way that you hold the Office of Constable by the consent of the people.
Please think on these things.
They are important.
I am not a criminal
and you are not my enemy
* * * *
Brilliant . But we are for the moment I’m afraid just hissing in the wind, it’s all for the common ( purpose ) good inn’it, the press is still full of praise for the lock down, maybe that will change now that Ferguson has broken the ‘rules’ odd how for everyone else it’s the Law. ‘All in it together’ how disgraceful that sounds now.
What you call ‘hissing in the wind’ Lenin called ‘seeding’. The seeding of ideas. You might not like his politics but he knew a thing or two about technique.