Hundreds of restaurants and gyms hit with lockdown fines could see their fixed penalties revoked in the courts, a leading lawyer has suggested. MailOnline has more.
Twenty-three such cases have already collapsed so far, with more than 800 more having “strong cases” for potential appeals, solicitor advocate Lucinda Nicholls, of Nicholls & Nicholls explained.
Ms. Nicholls said gyms were particularly susceptible to fines due to confusing official guidelines – including regulations that said those with a BMI higher than 40 were “entitled to go to a gym for exercise”.
“Therefore gyms were allowed to be open for that category of customer,” she told the Times.
Now legal experts across the country have accused official bodies of showing ignorance for the exceptions to lockdown restrictions that saw businesses wrongly hit with financial penalties.
The developments come after a gym owner who faced a £10,000 fine for keeping his gym open during the second lockdown saw the “flimsy” and “inept” case against him dropped.
Alex Lowndes, who owns Gainz Fitness and Strength in Bedford and St Neots in Cambridgeshire, refused to close his gym in November 2020 after COVID-19 restrictions were imposed. Mr Lowndes’ establishment was subsequently raided by police and he was charged with a breach of lockdown regulations, which he denied.
The businessman failed to pay the fixed penalty notice and was due to stand trial last March, however his case, defended by Ms. Nicholls, collapsed after the authority failed to gather sufficient evidence to prosecute.
Bedford Borough Council said the case was in the “public interest”, they enforced the rules at the time and that there was “ample evidence for a successful prosecution”.
The CPS has said each lockdown fine would be considered on its individual merits.
Mr Lowndes told the BBC: “They [the council] should have looked at it even six months in and gone ‘this is a waste of time’. But they kept going and they kept going, they brought in an external barrister, they kept spending money, and it just got out of control.”
He added: “[Contesting the case] was based on principle. We should never have shut in the first place and we stand by what we did at the time.”
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.
Professor, the thing is – this whole net zero, man-made-climate-change business is not about science. They do not care whether you are right or wrong.
Professor, the whole thing is about power and control.
It’s about you and me and just about everybody else being controlled by a small, elite group of politicians/criminals.
That’s all there is to it.
Marxism wasn’t about the liberation of the proletariat either. It was just a useful ideological tool to acquire total control over the entire population, to the extent where any individual could be summarily executed without any reason.
Nazism wasn’t about the superiority of the Germanic race either. It was just a useful ideological tool to kill as many people as possible – Jews, Germans, Russians, whatever.
Woke isn’t about addressing historical injustice either. It’s just a useful ideological tool to control and enslave people.
Professor, feel free to study the climate if that’s what you enjoy doing, there is no reason why it shouldn’t be done. But be aware of what’s going on, because, I’m sure as a scientist you don’t like the feeling of not knowing what’s going on.
Indeed. “Public health” isn’t about the health of the public either.
”“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
Joseph Goebbels
“And you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free” , John 8:32
It sure is a big battle but it is still worth fighting, all is not yet lost.
Indeed.
Ye shall know them by their fruits. Matthew 7:16
Fruits of Nazism: Death camps, Europe in ruins, 50 million dead
Fruits of Communism: – Slavery, death camps, 100 million dead
Fruits of wokery: ? We’ll see.
True….They are a threat to all working & middle classes in this country. People need to start resisting this and trying to get the message of what Agenda 2030 is to the wider public. Car manufactures need to show some backbone too instead of asking the Government for clarity in deadlines, like Jews in the 1930s helping the Nazis kill more of them, or Turkeys voting for Christmas.
True major major sir sir, but we don’t need to convince the “elites”(and I use the word advisedly).
We just need to wake up the normies, and we’re getting there.
Faced with serious and increasing pushback the political class’s unity on this question will fracture.
The whole climate change story is a hodgepodge of nebulous theories all of them so vague and unverifiable that they are impossible to prove or disprove.
All climate change predictions are couched in words like could, might, possibly.
And even those are consistently wrong. No polar ice in the summer, Maldives under water. All not even remotely accurate.
The whole thing is just the biggest scam of the last 30 years.
None of this work will be reported in the mainstream
Too many vested and powerful interests hold sway over the MSM.
There are people who are very invested in the Net Zero project, some of whom might even believe in it. But many of its supporters cannot backdown now, no matter what contradictory evidence is presented to them. There are others who are using it to simply control populations. Both petty and serious authoritarians are delighted with Net Zero.
But the ever increasing evidence that challenges Net Zero, cannot be ignored forever. Thus I expect to see a change of tack, away from CO2 as the bogeyman, to a more wooly notion that reducing consumption and consequently ‘saving’ the environment, is good in and of itself.
Levels of CO2 have been much higher in the past, with evidence of vibrant animal and plant life.
Anyone who has seen the destruction left by a herd of elephants munching their way through nature would wonder at how similar numbers of massive dinosaurs could possibly have survived. The answer was, of course, that CO2 levels at the time varied between 1,200 and 2,800ppm, i.e. three to seven times today’s level.
CO2 levels in the Cambrian period 540 million years ago were just under 8,000ppm, i.e. twenty times today’s value.
Temperature data going back billions of years show that average global temperatures have varied by more than 10°C in either direction and that the Earth is currently in one of the coldest periods in its history. No geological period has been as cold as our current period, the Quaternary, for at least 250 million years. (See ‘Inconvenient Facts’ by Gregory Wrightstone.)
Not only that, but CO2 levels are often artificially increased in greenhouses to accelerate plant growth, often done by exploiting the exhaust of gas fired heating.
I don’t like the “trapping heat” explanation of the greenhouse effect. So what if more heat is trapped in the upper atmosphere, why should I care about that on the surface?
A better argument in my view is to consider the energy striking the ground, some (a lot) of which comes from the atmosphere, which is why cloudy nights are warmer than clear ones.
Downwards radiation from CO2 molecules comes from an effective height, below which the infrared photons have a good chance of avoiding absorption before striking the ground. Adding more CO2 must reduce that effective height, increasing (usually) the temperature, giving more downward radiation at the surface.
Hence, saturation is a myth.
Saturation is most certainly not a ‘myth’, if only because it is only a hypothesis, as this article points out:
‘The saturation hypothesis would appear to explain how CO2 has been 10-15 times higher in the past without runaway temperatures, while the anthropogenic warming opinion does little more than provide scientific cover for a dodgy but fashionable extreme eco scare.’
This hypothesis is supported by workings:
‘Diffuse radiation depends on the different absorption bands of carbon dioxide and water vapor, as functions of wavelength, temperature, concentrations or pressure. The predicted results using COMSOL computer code show that the effects of carbon dioxide concentration on ground surface temperature are negligibly small, for example, over a 5-year period.’
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590123024015548
‘We used this setup also to study thermal forcing effects with stronger and rare greenhouse gases against a clear night sky. Our results and their interpretation are another indication for having a more critical approach in climate modelling and against monocausal interpretation of climate indices only caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.
Basic physics combined with measurements and data taken from the literature allow us to conclude that CO2 induced infrared back-radiation must follow an asymptotic logarithmic-like behavior, which is also widely accepted in the climate-change community.
The important question of climate sensitivity by doubling current CO2 concentrations is estimated to be below 1˚C.
This value is important when the United Nations consider climate change as an existential threat and many governments intend rigorously to reduce net greenhouse gas emissions, led by an ambitious European Union inspired by IPCC assessments is targeting for more than 55% in 2030 and up to 100% in 2050 [1].
But probably they should also listen to experts [2] [3] who found that all these predictions have considerable flaws in basic models, data and impact scenarios.’
https://www.scirp.org/pdf/acs2024144_44701276.pdf
The best way for you to counter that hypothesis would be with your own workings, without which your ruminations, as with so much nut zero nonsense, simply add more hot air……
There seems to be conflicting evidence. So of the science appears to have an almost limitless budget, some of it doesn’t.
However, the simple irrefutable truth is that Mrs Jones the retired shop assistant living in the UK – and all those like her, including you and I, should bare no penalty as no action by us remedial or otherwise could possibly have any effect on Global CO2 or therefore climate change. And as such we are, ruining our economy, and our futures for …nothing.
Their terraforming plans have nothing to do with greenery. They aspire to a sandy desert world where silicon will reign supreme. The real target isn’t carbon dioxide it is carbon generally. If they see you going out for a drive with your big family then they are filled with loathing and homicidal tendencies. You are a vermin problem.
Perhaps someone could letMr Miliband know about CO2. He does not appear to understand the science. Perhaps he should as Zorofessor Willie Soon, an astrophysicist for advice.
Very well written, positively seminal in its field.
William Happer (Princeton) authored a paper published in 2020 on the saturation of the infrared absorption bands for the five most abundant greenhouse gases: https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.03098#
Its simple, telling to truth doesn’t get you billions of £s, dollars etc, it also doesn’t enable you to control the situation either , but the fact of the matter is, the Truth ultimately will come out and sooner the better in this country, before they either freeze or starve us to death!!.
Chris:
Shame on you for not referencing the original and most quoted paper on CO2 absorption: Wijngaarden & Happer (2002), which also notes that methane emissions are also a non-problem.
It just seems so unbelievable that so many people want to go along with the Net Zero scam, but then you look back to how so many behaved during the Covid period and then you understand and despair of the stupidity of it all
Not surprising as most people still trust the media and government
Nil illegitimi carborundum people.
Merry Christmas. Turn on all the lights.
‘What the scientists are looking at here is the narrow absorption bands within the infrared (IR) spectrum that allow ‘greenhouse’ gases to trap heat and warm the planet.’
I’m not sure Chris is making the saturation point correctly here. Incident solar radiation only in a certain frequency band is absorbed by CO2, and all the incident solar radiation in that band is absorbed by existing CO2. Therefore, additional CO2 produces no additional absorption, because there is no radiation in the pertinent band left to be absorbed.
What about the IR rerediated from the earth?
“studies suggest”? It’s beyond any shadow of doubt.