Coronavirus restrictions: are they legal

[Geoff.R.G]

I can quote stats as well. Geoff in the interests of h/s members I nominate you to catch the virus and see if you recover. In the interests of fairness I'll get flu.

As it is very likely that most cases are asymptomatic...

[Daniel Quinn]

The offer is there . Or you could just do the sensible thing and admit it is far to early in the life of the virus to make declarations and a government as no choice but to act as they are doing despite all these audiophiles with perfect knowledge.

[Classicrock]

I can quote stats as well. Geoff in the interests of h/s members I nominate you to catch the virus and see if you recover. In the interests of fairness I'll get flu.

As it is very likely that most cases are asymptomatic...

Fact is for some the Virus is fatal due to genetics or underlying health conditions. If it did little to you ,you would likely pass it on to someone for which it proves fatal. If it kills 1% of those infected and everyone in UK had it that would mean approx 700,000 deaths. In Italy death rate from known cases is more like 10%. Government have absolutely no choice but to implement these restrictions. They are hoping restrictions will keep deaths below 20,000. So people who ignore these instructions or stupid enough to think they are indestructible need to be sanctioned. All this has been passed by Parliament now and is completely legal as of today so police can arrest transgressors and you have no argument if they send you home or to a cell.

[Lindsayt]

The offer is there . Or you could just do the sensible thing and admit it is far to early in the life of the virus to make declarations and a government as no choice but to act as they are doing despite all these audiophiles with perfect knowledge.

The Governement has no choice? Just like the US Government, in the wake of 9/11 had no choice when it came to torturing people to save lives?

All I want is for the Government to act in a totally legal and ethical way.

I'm not convinced that that's the case at the moment.

It appears that they are using this virus crisis to implement restrictions in some areas that they are not legally entitled to implement.

Furthermore, section 51 of the Coronavirus Bill appears to be a bad piece of legislation. It contains the following sections:

Powers to direct or remove persons to a place suitable for screening and assessment6
(1) This paragraph applies if, during a transmission control period, a public health officer has reasonable grounds to suspect that a person in England ispotentially infectious.
(2) The public health officer may, subject to sub-paragraph
(3)—(a)direct the person to go immediately to a place specified in thedirection which is suitable for screening and assessment,
(b)remove the person to a place suitable for screening and assessment,or
(c)request a constable to remove the person to a place suitable for screening and assessment (and the constable may then do so)

And:

Powers exercisable after assessment14
(1) This paragraph applies where, during a transmission control period—
(a)a person in England has been screened and assessed by a publichealth officer (under paragraph 10 or otherwise) and—
(i)the screening confirmed that the person is infected orcontaminated with coronavirus, or
(ii)the screening was inconclusive, or
(b)a person in England has been assessed by a public health officer(under paragraph 10 or otherwise) and the officer has reasonablegrounds to suspect that the person is potentially infectious.

(2) A public health officer may at any time during the transmission control period impose such requirements and restrictions on the person as the officer considers necessary and proportionate—(a)in the interests of the person,(b)for the protection of other people, or(c)for the maintenance of public health.

(3) Requirements under this paragraph may include requirements—
(a)to provide information to the public health officer or any specifiedperson;
(b)to provide details by which the person may be contacted during aspecified period;
(c)to go for the purposes of further screening and assessment to aspecified place suitable for those purposes and do anything that maybe required under paragraph 10
(1);(d)to remain at a specified place (which may be a place suitable forscreening and assessment) for a specified period;
(e)to remain at a specified place in isolation from others for a specifiedperiod.

(4) Restrictions on a person under this paragraph may include restrictions, fora specified period, on—
(a)the person’s movements or travel (within or outside the UnitedKingdom);
(b)the person’s activities (including their work or business activities);
(c)the person’s contact with other persons or with other specified persons


The Bill does not appear to clarify what are reasonable grounds for a public health officer to suspect that a person is infectious. Bearing in mind that an over-zealous or vindictive public health officer could claim that a "suspected infectious person" is currently in the incubation period of this virus.
And an overzealous or vindictive public health officer could well claim that he or she considers requirements and restrictions on a particular person as necessary and proportionate, when they are - in fact - overzealous or vindictive.

[Daniel Quinn]

Comparing this situation with 911 is crass and naive.

You know they are doing the right thing as every decision they make, they didn't want to. Now is not the time for concern over civil liabilities. Ive seen nothing to concern me so far a govt power is concerned. You are engaged in an academic exercise ,probably because you are being paid to sit on your arse.

[valvesRus]

The point about "overzealous officials" could be applied to any existing legislation so why make a special point about the "emergency " legislation ?

Do something useful with your time, that's my advice.

[Daniel Quinn]

I can quote stats as well. Geoff in the interests of h/s members I nominate you to catch the virus and see if you recover. In the interests of fairness I'll get flu.

As it is very likely that most cases are asymptomatic...

Fact is for some the Virus is fatal due to genetics or underlying health conditions. If it did little to you ,you would likely pass it on to someone for which it proves fatal. If it kills 1% of those infected and everyone in UK had it that would mean approx 700,000 deaths. In Italy death rate from known cases is more like 10%. Government have absolutely no choice but to implement these restrictions. They are hoping restrictions will keep deaths below 20,000. So people who ignore these instructions or stupid enough to think they are indestructible need to be sanctioned. All this has been passed by Parliament now and is completely legal as of today so police can arrest transgressors and you have no argument if they send you home or to a cell.

It's all guesswork, currently. I've read blood types to race. There is one simple fact currently, nobody as a clue.

[Docfoster]

Page 283 is another section that may have relevance (especially 6c):

“The Secretary of State may, for the purpose of—
(a) preventing, protecting against, delaying or otherwise controlling the incidence or transmission of coronavirus, or
(b) facilitating the most appropriate deployment of medical or emergency personnel and resources, issue a direction prohibiting, or imposing requirements or restrictions in relation to, the holding of an event or gathering in England.
(2) A direction under sub-paragraph (1) may be issued in relation to—
(a) a specified event or gathering, or
(b) events or gatherings of a specified description.
...
(6) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2), events or gatherings may be described
(a) by reference to a number of people attending the event or gathering,
(b) by reference to a requirement for medical or emergency services to attend the event or gathering, or
(c) in any other way.”

[CN211276]

I am very much one for civil liberties and have always been a bit of a rebel, but in these extreme circumstances I agree with the draconion measures and will comply with the restrictions. I am going for daily walks as usual but keeping a two metre distance from passers by. I am lucky in that I am close to open countryside. The only time I will go out otherwise is to the near by Tesco for essential supplies. Being limited to one bottle of milk is unnececarrily increasing the number of visits. Also not happy about being limited to three bottles of beer.

[Lindsayt]

Comparing this situation with 911 is crass and naive.

You know they are doing the right thing as every decision they make, they didn't want to. Now is not the time for concern over civil liabilities. Ive seen nothing to concern me so far a govt power is concerned. You are engaged in an academic exercise ,probably because you are being paid to sit on your arse.

Ignoring the track record of democratically elected politicians sanctioning illegal and unethical things during times of crisis is naive.

And fuck this off-topic comment: "You are engaged in an academic exercise ,probably because you are being paid to sit on your arse."