A Scottish judge has ruled that the legal challenge launched by the Night Time Industries Association Scotland (NTIA) failed to demonstrate that the Sturgeon Government’s plans to impose vaccine passport checks on nightclubs and other ‘large’ venues are “disproportionate, irrational or unreasonable”. The scheme will now start on Friday as planned. BBC News has the story.
Lord Burns said [introducing vaccine passport checks] was an attempt to address “legitimate issues” of the pandemic in a “balanced way”.
Rejecting the legal challenge, he noted that the plans had been signed off in principle by MSPs, and would be subject to frequent review.
The regulations underpinning the scheme have not yet been published by the Government, but will come into force at 5pm on Friday morning.
However the Government has said the rules will not actually be enforced until October 18th, to give venues time to test their systems.
The vaccine certification scheme will require venues to put in place a “reasonable system” to check the status of customers over the age of 18, with certain exemptions on medical grounds.
Venues affected include nightclubs, unseated indoor events with more than 500 people, unseated outdoor events with more than 4,000 people, and any event with more than 10,000 people in attendance.
The plans were approved by MSPs despite all three opposition parties voting against them, but the NTIA lodged a legal challenge pushing for a delay.
At the Court of Session on Wednesday, QC Lord Keen – a former Advocate General for Scotland – argued that the system was “discriminatory” against certain venues, and “wholly disproportionate”.
He said the status quo should be maintained until ministers could provide a “coherent explanation” for why the scheme was needed, adding that the court should “protect the basic legitimate rights” of the petitioners.
He said ministers were bringing forward regulations “beyond the 11th hour, in the strangest fashion”, adding: “The very fact I have had to say within 24 hours of these regulations coming into force that we haven’t seen them, is itself redolent of the problem that exists here.” …
Announcing his decision on Thursday morning, Lord Burns said he did not accept that the petitioners had demonstrated the scheme was “disproportionate, irrational or unreasonable”, or that it infringed on their rights.
He said it was “an attempt to address the legitimate issues identified in a balanced way”, and was within the margin of what the Government could decide was a reasonable response to the pandemic.
While Lord Keen had argued the decision to set up the scheme had been taken without any supporting evidence having been published, Lord Burns said the decision was “made on the basis of principle and broad outline” with details to follow.
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Gasps of surprise. “My verdict is that they are necessary and proportional! Now, make your argument.”
Exactly, the entire burden of proof is hoisted onto those who want to retain the status quo.
“Sorry,I don’t think that does it. Onwards to tyranny”
Time for clubs, bars and punters to vote with their feet.
What shocking news! … for no one at all. Do you really think people end up as judges in charge of making state level decisions if the government doesn’t have them in their pocket?
Will we see him on a yacht in the DM soon?
Lord Burns said he did not accept that the petitioners had demonstrated the scheme was “disproportionate, irrational or unreasonable”, or that it infringed on their rights.
Clearly the petitioners did not manage to get across to Lord Burns that THE VACCINES DON’T PREVENT INFECTION OR TRANSMISSION !!!!!!!!!
Are we in some kind of parallel universe? Doesn’t anyone in authority have the slightest bit of self-respect? What is going on?
When people have decided, that seems to be that. I’ve had conversations with my folks. Tens of thousands could be dying from this vaccine – they probably are! – and they still would not change their views. It’s complete dogma.
Self assured hubris is the scourge of modern society. People will not admit to being wrong at any cost.
This safety argument may have sounded somewhat plausible after the rushed clinical studies, but after a year and hundreds of millions of people vaccinated it just sounds dumb. Time to change your song, I guess.
The safety argument:
Someone really should tell Pope Francis.
And by the way, here is what I wrote rather belatedly BTL in esponse to the “Vatican vaxports” article. For what it’s worth.
Ah, the National Catholic Distorter.
A few points to note. This is not an ex cathedra pronouncement on doctrine, not even an encyclical, but one of his famous interviews beginning “I believe” – basically a personal opinion.
As for the doctrinal office note, it talks of “vaccines” [for ‘Covid’]. that are “recognised as safe and effective”. It doesn’t say recognised by whom – for example “recognised by x number of independent doctors” – just recognised. So it is up to us to make our own judgment . Be assured that there are clergy (and of course laity) in his Church who believe that Catholics should not take these experimental “vaccines”. The same with other Christian churches, because Christian doctrine does not require people to take these “vaccines” based on some reasonable interpretations of the evidence available that conclude, as many independent doctors have, that they are not “safe and effective”. Christians who sincerely believe, after careful consideration, that these experimental gene therapy drugs are not safe and effective, are by no means morally obliged to take them. As I’ve said before, I have yet to see convincing evidence that they are safe and effective. Or that this virus poses an exceptional risk that would justify setting aside normal safety considerations. Or that there are not alternative treatments available.
There are lots of people at my anti-lockdown church, including clergy, who do not think we should be taking these “vaccines”, and this will continue to be the case.
Oh, and the doctrinal note, dated December 21st 2020, says : “In the absence of other means to stop… the epidemic”. If we did not know then, we have now seen clear evidence from parts of India on Ivermectin as an effective other means. So therefore Catholics should clearly not be expected to take these dangerous experimental “vaccines”, however many lies the pharmaceutical industry and their proxies with a financial interest in the “vaccines” may tell about Ivermectin (as indeed they have previously deceived about other medications that threaten their profits).
Where is your anti-lockdown church? I am desperate to find one.
There are loads on the Wirral.
I wish I could say. They apparently had an incident with the police in the first lockdown when they pushed things a bit far, and we’ve been told to be very careful what we put online lest we make more trouble for them.
True to a point. But not as dumb as the proposition that covid is extraordinarily dangerous. After 18 months of hundreds of millions of people supposedly catching covid and not dying and all the inflated covid deaths, most of which aren’t covid at all, it just sounds dumb. Time to change THAT song.
Unfortunately the covid catastrophists have control of the loudspeaker.
From the description of the case, it seems that they focussed on the wrong things: the burden on businesses, and equality arguments (but without a sob story to illustrate them).
The core of the case should have been that they cannot possibly achieve what they claim to be able to achieve.
Better to lose fighting the actual foe than its shadow.
Vaccines might not completely prevent transmission, but they sure do reduce it (by 50% was the last estimate I read).
When a vaccinated person gets infected, they do have the same viral load as unvaccinated. However, it’s less likely that a vaccinated person gets infected to begin with.
Therefore, there is some reason for claiming that the vaccinated are “less dangerous”. Although it most probably won’t matter much because increasing contacts and dropping additional precautions will almost certainly offset that safety margin (as already proved by Israel).
Stats to back that up, please!
As regards ‘additional precautions’, there is no evidence that these make any demonstrable difference.
If as an additional precaution you do not meet someone at all, it is impossible that they will be infected by you (and if you are not allowed into a building, it is fairly probable that you will not any people inside). That’s pretty much the only precaution which works.
It is also plausible that there is a gradient of effectiveness, e.g. meeting someone for 1 minute in the open air is probably less of a problem than sitting with them for 1 hour in a tight space.
The discussion does not need to be whether the precautions work (they do), but whether their cost makes it worth it (it does not).
Do you wring your hands this much over the chance of being struck down dead by a boat on dry land? It can happen I’m sure, but the chances are pretty slim.
EDIT: having thought about it, I have seen something like this happen in a James Bond movie, but I assure you it was all filmed in a controlled environment (just like Biden’s ‘vaccination’ LOL).
That will be why fully vaccinated venues have this problem then?
JUST IN – #COVID19 “breakthrough cases” have canceled tonight’s performance of “Aladdin” on Broadway just one day after the show reopened for the first time in 18 months.
Also, you need to factor in the effects of a depressed immune system in people who avoid exposure to germs (hence the “worst ever colds” in the new recently.
Also, they wander about with the same viral load but less symptoms apparently, making them more likely to pop to the pub than someone who is legitimately ill….
I can guarantee that if you have proper covid symptoms like I had you couldn’t even contemplate going to the pub.
If vaccinated people can spread the bug essentially asymptomatically then maybe they’re the ones who should be restricted instead.
According to current knowledge spread occurs a few days before the symptoms set in.
Ah yes, the asymptomatic bollocks. This virus is so devious and so discrete no one even knows they’ve got it until they shove a stick up their nose (or their backside if they have the misfortune of living in the epicentre of this insanity).
That appears to have been made up to suit the narrative.
People who know what they are talking about (I seem to recall Dr Yeadon was one) have countered it with the logical explanation that in order to be able to spread it people will need to have a sufficient amount of virus in their nasal passages – and a sufficient amount would also be sufficient to ensure they have symptoms (not sure whether this still applies to the vaxxed, but I expect so as the evidence for the vax reducing symptoms seems very shaky)
I understood the latest research showed the viral load in the vaccinated is 251 times higher than in the unvaccinated, or have I missed yet another u turn.
That was a study from Vietnam, I think? It wasn’t comparing like with like though – it compared the viral load in vaccinated patients who had delta with that in unvaccinated patients earlier in the pandemic with different strains. It could be down to the vaccine, it could be down to different strains. Or it could be a combo of both (quite possibly, in my view, given all the information emerging on both sides saying delta potentially more infectious and vaccines potentiating infection but limiting symptoms)
Right — so in that case it is now a very complicated argument about relative risks.
The list goes on. The problem here is almost certainly that the judge is ignorant of the complexities of the immune response to upper respiratory tract infections and of the leaky nature of the covid vaccines — He, like many people who have been misinformed by the official communications, believes that the vaccines are similar to the majority of vaccines and offer a substantial benefit. This misunderstanding is causing vast problems, both in terms of health and society, that will be with us for some time to come.
“the judge is ignorant of the complexities of the immune response …”
I think you can cut that short :
“the judge is ignorant” – like the majority of the population about all relevant matters. However, One should be able to expect a better level of reasoning – as long as the counter-evidence was presented clearly.
Yes, these are all legit questions, but they do not demonstrate that a temporary introduction of vaccine passports during the winter season (while the vaccines are still somewhat effective) will have no effect. The vaccine passports ARE time-limited. Time will tell whether they will be used to force-sell boosters (over and over again?) or simply abolished next spring. This will also depend on people’s (lack of) acceptance.
Considering the destructive potential in introducing such “tools” and all the “misunderstandings” they create, I am very much opposed to them. In fact they are possibly the worst policy introduced during this pandemic (magic divide-and-conquer masks have a firm second place).
“(by 50% was the last estimate I read).“
Yeh yeh yeh. ‘Estimate’ – the outcome of another ‘model’, those oh-so-accurate tools.
The main observational evidence – the curve of mortality (all we have after the wrecking of proper testing) is actually that the ‘vaccines’ have shown nil to negative effects.
Before the wreck was complete, an ARR of ~1% does not indicate any significant reduction in transmission.
Well, these estimates are based on infection data, what else. While claims that the vaccines “don’t work at all” are frankly just pulled out of stupid people’s asses.
Tell us a country where they are ‘working’?
This is horseshit. Vaccination cannot prevent infection. Apart from that, assuming COVID cases would grow exponentially and thus, threaten to overwhelm the health system, half of that growth would still be exponential growth, ie, if this claim was true, it would demonstrate that vaccination is useless against transmission.
Lastly, it would need to be demonstrated that the minorities targetted by these measures are actually unvaccinated minorities and not just people whose lifes Nicola Sturgeon wants to make more difficult.
“Vaccination cannot prevent infection.” And why not? Because you say so?
And of course we know no “exponential growth” is possible because whenever a local cluster runs out of people to get infected, the infection rates fall. It’s not like everyone is meeting everyone else all the time, as assumed in the idiotic exponential growth model.
If you don’t know that, you should perhaps remain silent on the issue: Vaccination is supposed to train someone’s immune system to fight an infection effectively to stop it from progressing towards a (possibly dangerous) disease. And – I’m afraid to say so – your immune system has absolutely no effect on something entering your body from the outside before it has entered it.
Eine andere Idee wäre vielleicht, mit schlauen Äußerungen zu warten, bis man wenigstens mal Mittelstufenkenntnisse über Humanbiologie hat.
The role of vaccination is to prep up your immune system so that it starts killing off the virus sooner and more effectively than would be the case without vaccination.
So yes, technically you will get “infected” in the sense that the virus will enter your body, but you might feel no symptoms and be less likely to spread it, because your “infection” is less severe. Kind of like you are not going to get “infected” and infect others immediately after a successful recovery.
Maybe you should abstain from grasping at straws and listen what the argument really is about.
Quoting the statement I was addressing:
When a vaccinated person gets infected, they do have the same viral load as unvaccinated. However, it’s less likely that a vaccinated person gets infected to begin with.
This obviously contradicts your statement above: You’ve switched from less likely to get infected but as infections once this has happened to as likely to get infected but less infectious afterwards.
That’s also nonsense because vaccination doesn’t generate mucosal antibodies. Hence, the virus will replicate in the so-called upper respiratory tract and will eventually be removed from it by naturally acquired immunity. Until then, vaccinated and unvaccinated people who aren’t already immune will shed viruses. The effect of COVID vaccination possibly comes into effect at a later stage, if the viruse manages to jump from the mucosa into the blood stream, where it’s more dangerous because it can reach into pretty much all of the vital systems of the body.
NB: This is for completeness. I don’t discuss with people who switch their standpoints at a whim for the sole reason to appear right on something.
Viral load and transmission are not associated in the study i saw.
viral load is raised in the jabbed that then get covid.
I guess you don’t look at the PHE Technical Briefings. Number 24 out tomorrow ! You can ignore the facts in that one too lol.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.09.28.21264262v1
No Significant Difference in Viral Load Between Vaccinated and Unvaccinated, Asymptomatic and Symptomatic Groups Infected with SARS-CoV-2 Delta VariantOnly a pre print at the moment, but another in a long line saying the same thing. As far as Delta goes I haven’t found anything that says different.
maybe you need to change your song?
In an answer to the Scottish parliamentary committee on covid19, John Swinney stated that the measure was based on trying to increase vaccine take-up. That’s all – a simple coercion that I presume he was able to talk about once the court case was over.
I’m afraid rayc that you’ve been “had”.
I don’t think John Swinney or anyone else in government believes this tosh about preventing transmission – two hundred sweaty bodies in a nightclub are going to a pass to each other and quickly recover from a tumult of viruses and bacteria: it will be the alcohol and late nights that get them if anything and probably not even those.
Innocently believing everything the MSM tell you about the transmission of disease might leave you well short of anything useful or truthful.
NI politicians have said the same thing to local media – they want a vaxx passport because the vaccine take up hasn’t been high enough ergo it has nothing to do with safety or reducing transmission it is simply a coercive measure- if the vaccine was so beneficial to people’s health why would they need to threaten people to have it????
50% over what time period though? If it’s over a day, that won’t make much difference. If it’s over a month, that is more significant.
This is why any kind of challenge to the general BS going on globally is going to be incredibly difficult. It would take a judge or official who, one, had not been suckered in by the MSM narrative and, two, was prepared to publicly go against that narrative and thereby risk his or her career. I wish I could be more optimistic but I just don’t see this happening. Moreover, governments will just keep trying until the get the right judge in any case.
Major, disruptive protests with huge numbers are the only way out of this, and even then this is a long shot.
The judiciary and COPFS in Scotland have been in the SNP’s pocket for some time now
Indeed, the Salmond / Sturgeon case and the jailing of Craig Murray for reporting on it pulled the curtain back. Queen Nicola and her cabal run absolutely everything now, openly.
I haven’t followed the legal arguments on this one, but how are they justifying it? if the aim is to reduce spread of the “deadly” virus, then the statistics very clearly show that spiking people doesn’t reduce their ability to catch it or spread it, therefore vax passports are irrelevant – so what is the justification? (the stated one I mean – the real one is obviously to punish those who don’t “follow the rules”).
“ the real one is obviously to punish those who don’t “follow the rules”. Well spotted Wilson wondered how long it would take you.
IT WORKS
Yep okay so I’ve had the jab(let’s pretend!) and therefore don’t need to worry about anything if it stops me getting infected and if I can’t get infected I can’t infect you. You couldn’t give a monkey’s either way so you don’t worry if I’ve been jabbed or not. The only people who you can get Covid from are other people who couldn’t give a rat’s arse either. If I do get “it” I’ll have a 99.7% chance of survival – not bad eh!
IT DOES’T WORK
I’ve had the jab (still pretending!) but I can still contract Covid AND pass it to you. You still couldn’t give a monkey’s but this time you can get Covid from well anyone really.
CONCLUSION
Vaccine passports are totally illogical.
FOOTNOTE
Either this Judge is corrupt or Nicola Sturgeon has a picture of said Judge shagging a donkey hidden away in her desk draw.
Steps back in amazement!!! Wow, as if anyone really believed that a Judge would actually use his “judgement” to rule against this! IT’S ALL THEATRE, AN ILLUSION! Trust NOTHING that comes out of their mouths.The whole process is identical worldwide, and set in the (Georgia Guide) stones. They’re just playing with us now. Hold hard and stand firm, every single day!
It’s not a vaccine passport. It’s an obedience passport.
It doesn’t demonstrate that you aren’t a public health risk. It demonstrates that you are a obedient citizen who obeys the government without hesitation.
If there was anything at all genuine about it, it would in some way acknowledge the scientific fact of natural immunity – which none of the jab passports seemingly do, because natural immunity doesn’t sell any vaccines and make profits for big pharma and natural immunity means no one gets punished for not having the jab.
Exactly. As someone who has recovered from COVID, I am less risk to the public a vaccinated person who has not had COVID. I should be the one with the Platinum Frequent Flier Passport. Free to travel and socialise at will. But no.
Besides which – even before you get to that argument, no civilzed democracy would go down the road of overturning the medical ethics of 70 years in a return to totalitarianism.
and me also.
The German pass acknowledges immunity. For 6 months.
Yet none of the manufacturers claim that the jabs confer immunity. Funny that.
6 months is not scientific considering the fact that the natural immunity is more likely to last something like 17 years, but after 6 months if, according to the german authorities, your natural immunity has gone then you will require a jab – all they are “allowing” you to do is delay the getting of that jab but jab you they will. Have a nice time in Germany.
It’s one of these stories which heap credence to my belief that Scotland is running out of the authority to call itself a democracy.
Especially when you consider how vaccine passports were introduced in the first place. The SNP do not hold a majority in the Scottish Parliament, and the four other parties in the Parliament objected against vaccine passports. So the SNP simply made a deal with the Greens, telling them their two co-leaders could hold junior positions within the government. But in return, the Greens had to agree to vaccine passports, even though they previously said it was discriminatory. So the vote passed.
Not to mention that SNP members who previously said they were against vaccine passports suddenly agreed to it when Nicola said she wanted them. John Swinney, the Deputy FM, said that excluding those who didn’t take the vaccine was the “wrong way to handle it” in June. In July, Humza Yousaf, the Health Secretary, said he felt passports were discriminatory against minority groups. Yet, as soon as Nicola said she wanted the passports, both John, Humza and the rest of the SNP joined with her in favour. What changed?
Scotland is not a democracy. The country is subject to the ego of its petulant leader, who tries to look better than England and will use her internal power and deals with other parties to make sure any COVID restriction she comes up with – and remember they want to make their emergency powers permanent! – will be enforced. However, voters will continue voting Nicola, and future SNP leaders, in power, if it means they can get the very, very slight chance at independence from the UK.
It’s independence from England that is the driving force for the SNP. If they can achieve that, we will be back in the EU and subject to the whims of Berlin, Brussels, Paris, Madrid etc but we will be liberated from the tyranny of our nearest neighbour. And we know how fair-minded the EU is in its treatment of the small countries if they don’t do what they’re told.
The EU won’t want Scotland – it would be yet another drain on the stretched-beyond-breaking-point finances.
The EU doesn’t follow that sort of logic, though. I can see it bending the rules to let Scotland join just to spite the UK.
Prepare for Scottish refugees crossing over the border soon…
Could be a boon for the night-time economy in Carlisle and Newcastle (well, until Johnson does something similar anyway).
‘The Blob sides with The Blob’
The law appears ignorant of the science.
All will be judged!
I suggest said judge looks at what happened to some judges at the Nuremberg trials. The corrupt judiciary of this country won’t stand up for the people. We need to stand up for ourselves. Only then will we get our justice and former lives back.
Bastards, the lot of them.
Scotland is populated by retards who think Nanny knows best.
I know this, living there.
One of Sturgeon’s corrupt judges doing her bidding, much as Lady whatshername jailed Craig Murray for reporting on the Salmond trial.
Same theatrics will happen in England soon, more theatre for the plebs.
As more and more vaccinated catch it and die, the more the restrictions on the unvaccinated will increase.
I’ll NEVER take this vaccine, no matter how crap they try and make my situation. When your Govt goes to these extremes you know they are not in the slightest bit interested in your ‘health’.
Same. It’s a hill I’m prepared to die on. I knew it before they even pretended to invent them, and I’ve never had strong opinions either way on vaccines. It’s one thing to lie to and terrify the public with baseless propaganda, but another thing entirely to inject those lies into your body. The whole thing can go to hell where it belongs.
Senator Ron Johnson
Our federal agencies have not been transparent. They have not given the American public information that we need to make an informed choice.
https://twitter.com/SenRonJohnson/status/1443401461665341442?s=20
For a pandemic which is being allowed to destroy the economies of countries, its very vague to count deaths ‘where covid was mentioned’ which are the majority at least in the UK
If they only counted deaths where it was (genuinely) the main cause, the number would be so low that even the MSM would struggle to ignore the reality.
Sounds Fishy.
Are there any depths to which that woman won’t sink?
Forgone conclusion. Did anyone seriously expect Lord Burns to deny Sturgeon her ability to Dictate to the country.
Lord Burns another bought off corrupt Rothchild puppet!!
Coming to a country near you soon. In other words us, England the free. Not!!!
The judiciary are as bent as the politicians, all cut from the same cloth. We need to focus on installing Common Law!!
ANYONE NOT bought yet!??
The men in black balaclavas from Blackrock and Vanguard have called round and given the judges a few top tips on how to stay alive and keep their families safe.
Little known fact to folk in England. Scotland is rife with backhand dealing on ALL levels of society. Politicians are amongst the worst. They are all pals. Only some are further left than the others with barely any near the centre and NONE on the right.