Deep down, it is an expression of male/female differences caused by the fact that we live in a matriarchy ie a society that prioritises the preferences of unmarried mothers. There are now two bastards at Downing Street.
Single mothers whose father/husband is the welfare state are happy to stay forever in lockdown because that was their lifestyle pre-lockdown anyway. Their preferences are prioritised even over the preferences of big business like Virgin Airlines, P&O etc. In a matriarchy, all men are lower in status than the unmarried mother, and this includes POTUS. Too bad British men are singularly unable to discuss this amongst themselves. The last man who did so was the Jew Keith Joseph, and he paid dearly for this lèse-majesté. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/wintour-and-watt/2010/nov/25/conservatives-davidcameron While Jews and Muslims worship the Abrahamic God, Post-Christian Westerners who hate them only worship unmarried mothers recruited from irresponsible and immoral women to whom they desire sexual access. They now have their representative in Downing Street.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/05/03/boris-johnson-must-end-absurd-dystopian-tyrannical-lockdown2/
Steve Baker:
" On March 23, as we debated the Coronavirus Act, Boris Johnson told the nation in a statement, “From this evening I must give the British people a very simple instruction - you must stay at home.”
On March 24, the Government texted the nation, “new rules in force now: you must stay at home.” Immediately, the police in various places began enforcing them.
A barbecue was turned over by police in the West Midlands. Officers in Crewe stopped cars to ascertain whether they were making essential journeys. British Transport Police stopped and questioned people on trains in and around London, asking their reasons for travel.
But there was no new law in force until 1pm on March 26.
That’s when the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) Regulations were signed into law by Matt Hancock under the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984. While most of us complied by voluntary consent, where the police enforced the rules in the meantime, they were enforcing a proclamation. Whatever the necessities, that the rule of law should have been overthrown in this period is extraordinary and deeply troubling.
Only today do those rules enforcing the most draconian restrictions in British history come before the Commons for retrospective endorsement with just two hours debate and no division. We have lived under house arrest for weeks by ministerial decree – a statutory instrument that parliament had no foresight of and no opportunity to scrutinise or approve before it changed life in this country as we know it. The situation is appalling.
As I conceded on March 23, there were good reasons for ministers to take rapid action. The public would expect nothing less. The first responsibility of any government is to protect the lives of its people and faced with the uncertainty of this awful virus, the instruction for us all to stay at home to save lives was the right call.
But this suspension of freedom comes with a cost too. Millions of people in our country have been plunged into idleness at public expense and unemployment, facing financial and psychological hardship on a scale never seen before. Thousands of people have missed life-prolonging health appointments. Vulnerable people are isolated and domestic violence has soared. Soon will come the full economic impact on all our lives.
These extraordinary measures require not only legal authority but democratic consent. There is a real possibility that they have had neither.
A judicial review is being brought against the lockdown laws, claiming they are ultra vires – that is, that ministers have no legal authority to impose them in the way they did – and that they incur a disproportionate interference with fundamental rights and freedoms. There is serious legal scholarship supporting that view. I fear the present rules may be unlawful.
Meanwhile, the CPS is reviewing every single charge, conviction and sentence brought under emergency powers after civil liberties group Big Brother Watch detailed a string of wrongful convictions in a damning review. The zealous criminalisation of people for activity that, until a few weeks ago was entirely ordinary, has concerned many, including me. I am horrified by the expansion of the surveillance state, with thermal imaging cameras, drones, ANPR and location tracking being deployed at the drop of a hat to police the nation into imprisonment at home.
This is why the role of parliament is so vital. We must oversee the extraordinary measures that are being taken. Only we can supply legal and democratic legitimacy to the difficult decisions that need to be made in this crisis.
As I read the regulations we will surely endorse on Monday, curtailing our freedoms in ways unimaginable, I see rules which are unclear, subjective and potentially legally unsound. For example, the law in England does not restrict how frequently or for how long we exercise, nor whether we drive to do it. Yet ministers have dilated on whether an hour or 30 minutes is allowable. And we have risked offences of sitting too long on a park bench, purchasing luxury food and sweating inadequately while cycling. People have been accused of not exercising when practicing yoga and walking. Families have been driven off their own outdoor property, against the law.
This is absurd, dystopian and tyrannical. The sooner it is ended, the better.
If parliament is to be able to scrutinise the lockdown restrictions on Monday, we must see the Government’s detailed exit strategy. Parliamentarians, and the public, need more than vague assurances to see the light at the end of the tunnel. When our lives are at stake, we cannot operate on trust alone.
The world just changed but British values have not. It is imperative we hold ministers’ and the Prime Minister’s feet to the fire to uphold Parliamentary democracy, the rule of law and the freedoms which rest upon them. "
