Failed FOI

I have served 2 requests for Freedom of Information on my local council recently.

One, just before Christmas, was about the ubiquitous yellow striped posters that suddenly appeared about the city, trying to keep us in fear at a time of joy and relaxation (and for some, a key religious festival). Norwich City Council were unable – or unwilling – to provide answers and the evidence that they are legally obliged to. They tried to fob me onto central government, but I pointed out that as their name and logo (along with Norfolk County Council) are clearly on the posters, and there are signs round lamp posts saying #Protect Norwich, that this was clearly their doing. Thus, they were showing their agreement with central government’s narrative and are culpable for any disinformation and its effects. On what evidence are they stating ‘cases are rising’ here in our city? On what evidence are they telling us to socially distance and wear masks? I knew already that central government in this and other countries were unable to provide that information, and also cannot technically show SARS-COV-2 as existing. Could they prove that these measures weren’t actually doing harm? On 11th Jan, I advised the council following their second attempt at meeting their obligation – which just gave the £5100 cost, from central public purse – that if this was ignored (thus far, it has been), it was a breach and that follow up would occur.

Do other cities have these blessed waspy signs? I understand that all England has them – are they your way? Do you have something like it in other countries? Has anyone else made a FOI (or whatever your country calls it) request on similar lines?

On 9th Feb, I asked about 5G and cameras in this city – when installed, where are they, how much did they cost, on whose authority, what does it do, specification, and what consent did they seek and obtain?

I’ll be letting you know the responses, and what I do with them.

AN OPEN LETTER ABOUT MASKS AND OTHER COVID-RELATED RULES

I wish to challenge the upcoming rules about masks, and also taking our contact details in pubs.

One – I think this shows how arbitrary law creation can be, and that it can contravene what we know to be right and fair; but even within law:

No statutes can contravene Common Law and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights – a global, inalienable set of articles.

Lockdown has broken almost every one, and letting us out legislation has the potential for more.

But even so called emergencies can’t override these rights.

There is also the query that coronavirus a) was and b) still is an emergency, because figures have been greatly exaggerated and other narratives pushed aside. Many whistleblowers in medicine and science have queried the true infection rates, the death rates, the very nature of germ theory vs terrain – and thus how data has been used to justify government actions.

The act being used in Britain, The Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 (note the year), states that emergency contingency must be proportional. If the disease isn’t as deadly or widespread in a dangerous way, then the laws are disproportional and thus not valid. They also are valid for only a short period – we have overreached ours.

Many doctors also state that masks don’t help protect. Studies are vague (one being cited in April was retracted, but it relied on only 5 people). I have read many times the common sense approach that masks hold in our old breath, making any germs go round and round our respiratory system, thus making us ill. But masks aren’t designed or effective for stopping what we breathe out seeping beyond the mask.

Masks make hearing aids out fall out; glasses steam up; they exacerbate breathing issues (this is allowed for in legislation, thus they know that masks aren’t good for us); they promote fear, obfuscate conversation and emotional connection; they can look sinister.

There is a strange shift from WHO and other medical officials from saying: masks are not necessary for the healthy general public, especially in outdoor or brief indoor encounters; to sudden regulations requiring them – as lockdowns eased.

This seems a highly political move, to keep fear and the economy moving side by side.

Is this law or guidance? The latter can’t be enforced, the former only by police.

Hence chairman of the Federation of Police of England and Wales, John Apter, who quickly made a statement to newspapers at the news, is wrong to say that mask wearing should be a condition of entry to shops. He’s really saying: the police don’t want the job, so we’ll push it onto front of house staff – who are privately contracted employees, some of whom aren’t even employed to do security.

He also made a statement that masks are necessary – but he’s not a medical specialist, and neither is that his role to make or stipulate policy.

I had hoped that the first bit of his statement meant he and the police were an ally, and I’d love for them to refuse to enforce such an arbitrary, difficult rule.

Recently reopened cafes in England are being asked to take customers’ contact details at the door. Mostly, you’re not warned of this and there’s not a notice to tell you the conditions, (eg how long are they held, by whom, and exactly what for.)

This is contact tracing through the back door: who deems that there has been an outbreak of COVID among customers and requires them to be told to self isolate? Is this going to be checked or enforced? I can see that this is also a compliance test as well as a possible excuse for house arrest and collection of genetic material and treatment – not in the patient’s interest.

I pointed out that this is a data protection breach, the terms of which are unclear. We don’t usually have to do this to enter a library, so why now? Why are security staff – not library employees – allowed to take this information?

I can see how this is a compliance exercise and several are worried about further stages.

This may not seem too unreasonable – but what follows?

We shouldn’t need a doctor’s note – they’re hard to get to, and it assumes a condition that the mainstream health system understands whilst ensuring you’re in their system.

For a security guard or police officer to ask for our medical history is an intrusion.

I note the inconsistency: passengers must wear a mask on the socially distanced bus – but the driver doesn’t. You can sit round a pub table with your friends for an evening, maskless, but not swiftly move through the supermarket where you’re meant to be 2m apart… or was that 1 now, Boris… we’re really not sure. We’ve shopped all along – why the sudden panic?

Masks make us ill. If you think different, by all means…. if you think it reassures your customers…

but don’t require it, or make it a division and something for strangers to argue over, or employers to threaten staff with.

John Miltimore, editor of the Foundation for Economic Education, said

“Good ideas don’t need force.”

And bad ones… perhaps that is why force is being used. For nothing about this – spending money we may not have, thanks to lockdown, on masks that I frequency see discarded, that make us ill…

Have you noted how much coronavirus rhetoric is about others before you?

Wearing something, washing something, giving something should not be a government condition of opening or entering.

I reiterate that right to work (23), to associate (20), freedom of movement (13), to participate in cultural life (27), to a good standard of living – food, clothes, supplies (25), leisure (24) access to services (21) – are all enshrined the UDHR and thus denying these is not legal, especially as this is effectively penalising for one’s opinion – also forbidden under UDHR (18/19).

And there’s no exceptions (30), no discrimination (2).

‘The Will of the People is the basis for authority in government’ – UDHR 21.3

These laws are not and therefore, being deleterious to the same, are not lawful, nor moral.

Hence these regulations need to be dropped as recommendations only and give the people the choice of whether to go elsewhere, and never have their livelihood dependent on it.

And to the papers who say that mask-refusers are less intelligent:

I think the tenure and vocabulary of this article (somewhat abridged) proves this invalid.

Policing protesters

Police heavy handedness is all too common a feature of our broadsheets. Today’s Independent and Guardian reported how protesters in the spring at a London department store were held for many hours and had their homes searched under the terrorism act; over 100 people face trial. There is rightly an outcry from many quarters. I am alarmed and angered that the reasoning is wasting of ‘court time and resources’ as one MP put it, or police time. What matters is that the freedom to peacefully protest is being taken away; and that bullying tactics make this not a free country. This is abuse of power, of law, and an assault to liberty.

Protesting againsta company’s tax evasion is nothing to do with terrorism. That should be tightened to a very slim definition of those using death or the threat of death to make a political point – such as bombings, hostage holding, siege by gunpoint. It is not for people camping out in a commercial premises who had no intention of harming anyone. The phrase ‘national security’ needs to be tightened to mean the above or foreign invasion. The MI5’s other remit, of threats to the economy, should be scrubbed as economy is not part of our national security and comes across as being more concerned about finance than liberty of its citizens.

When, like so many other countries, we are faced with insupportable cuts to deal with a so called debt caused by greedy and irresponsible financiers and our own government’s mistakes, we do not want our already heavy taxes being spent on taking away free comfortable livin. It makes one wonder what other  will be eroded. We want the right to speak up against losses to pension, student support, and all the other services that are suffering. And anything else that matters to us. Conflating demonstration with terrorism means the means to speak out is receding. That is not democracy, it is tyranny.