In a sobering investigation, the Telegraph reveals how ordinary citizens are still being hauled through the courts for Covid rule breaches – years after restrictions ended – despite many simply falling foul of unclear regulations. Here’s an excerpt:
According to data analysed by the Telegraph, around 130 people appeared before court for hearings related to alleged Covid breaches in the past six months.
One of those was Kensington-based artist Dodi Wexler, 55, an American expat who has lived in the UK for the past 25 years.
In December 2020, Mrs Wexler and her three teenage sons flew to Massachusetts for a short Christmas holiday and became stuck there after the UK went into its third lockdown in January 2021.
When the restrictions lifted that March, they were finally able to travel back to the UK after registering negative Covid PCR tests on February 26th in Manchester-by-the-Sea, Massachusetts.
But Mrs Wexler was confused about the UK’s entry requirements and mistakenly booked a day 5 PCR test – when the requirements at the time were for day 2 and day 8 PCR Tests.
After arriving at Heathrow, Border Force confirmed she had the wrong tests and she was instructed to buy the correct ones from a centre outside the airport for £840.
On December 3rd, 2022, more than a year-and-a-half later, she received four £1,000 fixed penalty notices (PCN) from Border Force, one for failing to possess a testing kit herself, and the other three for failing to possess kits for her children.
In a letter contesting the PCNs to Steve Dann, the then chief operating officer of Border Force, Mrs Wexler wrote: “I am writing to ask you to please consider having mercy on us with this charge. It is cripplingly expensive and we just don’t have this spare cash lying around. My children are innocent of this breach as well, It was I who messed up.”
Mr Dann wrote back giving her two options – pay the fine or face prosecution.
She fought the charge for almost two years before finally appearing over Zoom for a hearing at Stockport magistrates’ court in Nov 2024, where her fine was reduced to £400.
Mrs Wexler said the ordeal was “traumatising” and made her feel like a “criminal”. …
Separate Telegraph analysis of government data shows that, on average, 11 people were still being sentenced for coronavirus offences each month in the first half of 2024.
Of the 30,701 people sentenced through the courts, one in six (16%) were sentenced after all coronavirus restrictions and lockdowns were lifted in February 2022.
Two-thirds were sentenced in the period after July 2021, when the last major lockdown restrictions were lifted.
You’ll need to set up an account to comment if you don’t already have one. We ask for a minimum donation of £5 if you'd like to make a comment or post in our Forums.
“Consultation exercises” are nothing but box ticking exercises primarily because the implementation decision has already been taken. Even when a consultation is convened a negative finding from those consulted always ensures a few tweaks and a rewording and then the original plan is enacted.
The announcement of a consultation exercise is simply confirmation that the scheme is good to go.
I wonder how many years in the slammer you’d get for not obeying this. Is there anything left in the UK that’s *not* a criminal offence? Well, with the exception of invading the country, which appears to be rewarded as opposed to prosecuted, obviously;
”CONTROL – Lockstep, as the UK government moves to control the entire food supply chain, including your own eggs!
From the 1st October 2024 it will be a criminal offence to own a SINGLE hen without registering with the authorities.
Exactly right. And the questions asked in these “consultation exercises” are always designed to come up with the required outcome: (“Are you happy with children being killed on our roads or do you support our idea of LTNs?) – OK I exaggerate, but not by much – so it’s good to see that some people have the common sense to say what they really think.
The fact that the response to the overwhelming opposition to the scheme was that “the outcome of the consultation resulted in modifications to the scheme not to the principle of a LTN” tells you all you need to know about these utter bar stewards.
I find this an interesting take.
Will they win this legal challenge? Could it be extended to national policies? We could start with the winter fuel allowance, then with Net Zero….
NO. Traffic legislation that would cover the changes that would introduce an LTN has its own specific non-transferable rules. If they win on failure to observe guidance on not proceeding in the face of mass opposition in would set case law for the future.
Gezza England
6 months ago
To make the legislation in the form of Traffic Orders a public consultation MUST be held in accordance with regulations. It has to be a genuine consultation so if for example equipment to implement the traffic scheme has already been purchased you can argue that it is not. I have never worked on a scheme where there was any expectation of NOT implementing it. Consultations are NOT a popularity contest so the number of responses either way – cycling schemes always got the cyclonutters out in force. It is the content of the responses in the form of objections that is most important as these MUST be answered once the legislation has been made. Honestly it is only really an objection on safety grounds that is likely to be heeded by the council. If objectors point out flaws in the plan that come true it does give them a stick to beat the council with that might get them to reconsider. An action in the High Court can ONLY be made on procedural grounds. That the consultation did not follow regulations or the council did not have he appropriate power. In terms of this one where consultation businesses was patchy, there is a case for going to court on ‘legitimate expectation’. If the scheme would affect your business in any way then you would have a legitimate expectation of being formally consulted. If you were sent some flowery scheme bullshit early on but not the formal consultation you have got them bang to rights. The ruse that is often used with these schemes is an Experimental Traffic Order. This does NOT require prior consultation as comments are made on the operation of the scheme for a period of 6 months. Here the council must indicate that it is an experiment – not a cheat to get a scheme in without consultation – and show what the measurement criteria are for judging the experiment. Case law was set with a challenge to the introduction of the Red Routes in London saying that TfL intended to have them so what was the experiment. TfL were able to show that there were elements of the Red Routes that were uncertain. The requirement that LTNs should not be introduced in the face of a lot of opposition is NOT in the regulations and would appear to just be guidance and not certain to be a successful argument.
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.
“Consultation exercises” are nothing but box ticking exercises primarily because the implementation decision has already been taken. Even when a consultation is convened a negative finding from those consulted always ensures a few tweaks and a rewording and then the original plan is enacted.
The announcement of a consultation exercise is simply confirmation that the scheme is good to go.
I wonder how many years in the slammer you’d get for not obeying this. Is there anything left in the UK that’s *not* a criminal offence? Well, with the exception of invading the country, which appears to be rewarded as opposed to prosecuted, obviously;
”CONTROL – Lockstep, as the UK government moves to control the entire food supply chain, including your own eggs!
From the 1st October 2024 it will be a criminal offence to own a SINGLE hen without registering with the authorities.
Micromanaging you food chain.”
https://x.com/LeilaniDowding/status/1840405900206489651
YOU WILL OBEY!
Brilliant. Just now I registered my kiwi, cassowary, guinea fowl, psittacines, goose, chicken, and many many more. I want to help.
Exactly right. And the questions asked in these “consultation exercises” are always designed to come up with the required outcome: (“Are you happy with children being killed on our roads or do you support our idea of LTNs?) – OK I exaggerate, but not by much – so it’s good to see that some people have the common sense to say what they really think.
The fact that the response to the overwhelming opposition to the scheme was that “the outcome of the consultation resulted in modifications to the scheme not to the principle of a LTN” tells you all you need to know about these utter bar stewards.
I find this an interesting take.
Will they win this legal challenge? Could it be extended to national policies? We could start with the winter fuel allowance, then with Net Zero….
NO. Traffic legislation that would cover the changes that would introduce an LTN has its own specific non-transferable rules. If they win on failure to observe guidance on not proceeding in the face of mass opposition in would set case law for the future.
To make the legislation in the form of Traffic Orders a public consultation MUST be held in accordance with regulations. It has to be a genuine consultation so if for example equipment to implement the traffic scheme has already been purchased you can argue that it is not. I have never worked on a scheme where there was any expectation of NOT implementing it. Consultations are NOT a popularity contest so the number of responses either way – cycling schemes always got the cyclonutters out in force. It is the content of the responses in the form of objections that is most important as these MUST be answered once the legislation has been made. Honestly it is only really an objection on safety grounds that is likely to be heeded by the council. If objectors point out flaws in the plan that come true it does give them a stick to beat the council with that might get them to reconsider. An action in the High Court can ONLY be made on procedural grounds. That the consultation did not follow regulations or the council did not have he appropriate power. In terms of this one where consultation businesses was patchy, there is a case for going to court on ‘legitimate expectation’. If the scheme would affect your business in any way then you would have a legitimate expectation of being formally consulted. If you were sent some flowery scheme bullshit early on but not the formal consultation you have got them bang to rights. The ruse that is often used with these schemes is an Experimental Traffic Order. This does NOT require prior consultation as comments are made on the operation of the scheme for a period of 6 months. Here the council must indicate that it is an experiment – not a cheat to get a scheme in without consultation – and show what the measurement criteria are for judging the experiment. Case law was set with a challenge to the introduction of the Red Routes in London saying that TfL intended to have them so what was the experiment. TfL were able to show that there were elements of the Red Routes that were uncertain. The requirement that LTNs should not be introduced in the face of a lot of opposition is NOT in the regulations and would appear to just be guidance and not certain to be a successful argument.