27 março 2021

Processos Covid-19

Lawyers for more than 2,000 families who lost loved ones in the pandemic are to take legal action to force the prime minister to hold an immediate public inquiry into the government’s handling of the crisis: "It’s hard not to think that the Government would rather save its reputation than save lives. But we family members, and the country, deserve answers". 

Matt Hancock acted unlawfully over pandemic contracts ... when his department did not reveal details of contracts it had signed during the Covid pandemic, a court has ruled. A judge said the health secretary had "breached his legal obligation" by not publishing details within 30 days of contracts being signed. The public had a right to know where the "vast" amounts spent had gone and how contracts were awarded, he added. The government said it fully recognised the "importance of transparency".

Government Guidance Has Failed Care Home Residents And Their Families: This damage is especially acute in residential care settings, which are not clinical facilities but intended as people’s homes. We are asking for a judicial review of the governmental guidance that permitted this chaotic and deeply desolating state of affairs. Guidance that has been drawn up without due attention to human rights legislation is not valid guidance. We strongly contend that this is the case, which is why we are asking the government for a judicial review.

Our client has suffered and continues to suffer significant harm as a result of the grossly disproportionate measures imposed to contain the COVID-19 pandemic without an evidence-based foundation: (...) On the errors underlying these assumptions: the five lockdown fallacies

1 The first false claim: No basic immunity

2. The second false claim: symptomless risk of infection

3. The third false claim: PCR-based diagnostics 

4. The fourth false claim: the menace of overload of the health care systems

5. The fifth false claim: Restriction on freedom can be beneficial

6. The interlocking of the deliberately false lockdown claims

(...) Now that we have listed, cursorily and without any claim to completeness, the damage caused by the Non-Pharmaceutical Interventions of politicians in the Corona crisis on your advice, we now look at our client. By deliberately giving scientifically unfounded recommendations to politicians or by promoting such measures from a position of influence, you have also deliberately caused him unconscionable damage and are therefore liable to our client under Section 826 of the German Civil Code (BGB) for the harm already caused. In addition, you personally must rectify the misinformation you have put into the world in an equivalent manner and in this way avert further harm to our client.

Lawyers to sue WHO for ‘misleading world over COVID-19 outbreak’: A group of lawyers is preparing to sue the World Health Organization and some of its partners for allegedly misleading the world over the severity of the COVID-19 outbreak and the measures taken to control it, which they say have damaged livelihoods and caused tremendous harm to economies.

The Free Speech Union's barrister had an opportunity to put our case to a High Court judge on December 9th, but our application to judicially review Ofcom's 'coronavirus guidance' was denied. We have decided not to appeal because Ofcom has conceded most of the points we were seeking to make. Since we brought this case, the regulator hasn't censured any more broadcasters for challenging the official Covid narrative, and at the High Court hearing Ofcom’s barrister assured the judge that it would no longer penalise its licensees for broadcasting material that undermined public confidence in the advice being disseminated by the UK Government or the public health authorities in connection with Covid-19 apart from in truly exceptional circumstances, such as if a broadcaster advised viewers to drink bleach to protect themselves from infection. While the judge denied us permission to proceed, he praised the Free Speech Union for bringing the case. “The claimants are quite right to emphasise the importance of freedom of expression,” he said.

Quién vigila a los vigilantes? ¿Cómo podemos velar porque las fuerzas del orden no cometan abuso en contexto de protesta – sean estas presenciales o digitales? La ciudadanía y activistas tienen derecho a difundir en línea los abusos de las fuerzas del orden, y deben poder hacerlo de manera segura y sin miedo a represalias.