Totally and wholeheartedly disagree Fon that Lockdown Sceptics will be viewed as Luddites.
I rather alternatively feel they will be remembered as Maquisards or akin to the little boy who put his finger in the dam in Holland, they will be viewed by history as people who risked everything to save their country and maintain our Liberte, Egalite, & Fraternite.

Agree sppedsticks..
Some will view them as tin foil hats and some will see the heros who stood up and fought against these evil people..
I know how I view them and that's all that matters ...how the 77th brigade view them is irrelevant to me and many others who dont give a toss what they think..
😀

Legality and truth is of no concern to government;

There is no objective "truth", as far as we know.Look, instead of mechanics, to quantum mechanics, in particular Schrödinger's cat , which holds that a cat in a sealed box is both alive and dead at the same time. Hence there is no objective truth. Descartes had something to say about it as well. As for Legality, Parliament is the highest court.

all they seek is absolute control and, now they have tasted it, will not easily let go.

They want more than just control, they want to be loved so we vote for them.

We see it in policies related to the virus and the Green Agenda

The goal is to limit global warming to under 1.5C by 2050. Reduction in carbon emissions due to lockdown is helping.

intended to destroy our industry (what's left of it) and our way of life.

thirty large nuclear blasts over great centers of population (London, Munich, Paris, Manchester, Tokyo,Bombay New York, LA ... ) could do the job in a flash without lockdown for the rest of us.

You may be uncritically reporting what TPTB wish - I think not - but if you think that governments and their "scientists'" 'green' policies might limit global temperatures you clearly have neither understood the physics nor done the basic calculations that you profess to be master of.

Yep and the government wins again with a huge majority.ok so 75 made a bit of noise wow..all the other cretins living on the huge salaries..no justification for the rona laws extended whatsoever.. just rubber stamping more rubbish that they all know is rubbish..wanksock getting off on it.they are all psychopaths and criminals.useless tossers the lot of them..
Writing in trying to stop this nonsense makes no difference to the outcome they want but the puppets will be dispensed with once they have served their purpose but the idiots dont get that as they think they are immune from it.

I'm afraid I agree with you on this, although I will send in some "comments". The review is a foregone conclusion. Asking businesses and public for comments is simply to pay lip service to the fact that the views of the British public matter one bit in the new medical-techno-dictatorship we live in.

To my mind an important part of the problem is the system for doing and using the science for these kinds of situations. This science then becomes the justification. Engineering is very different and we need to learn what we have painfully learnt with engineering. But perhaps I'm biased being an engineer, having an idealised view how it works in engineering and misunderstanding how science works.

Seems to me the way the science system works may be fine for slowly advancing our scientific understanding but it is not suited for dealing with these very high consequence, rapidly developing kinds of situations. Science hopefully gets there in the end, but it could be a very long time, too late, too much damage done by then.

Seems to me in these kinds of situations combined with governments and MSM they quickly latch on to something that seems to agree with their preconceptions and can be made to fit with expert knowledge and it suddenly becomes an extremely efficient but unstoppable force or stampede (because it has the expertise of science behind it and it's an emergency survival situation) eliminating all obstacles and dissent.

I think engineering has to deal with these kinds of situations all the time, it and the wider system has to learn through many painful lessons. Its survival depends on it and so does its customers (in my case also large engineering companies and their final customers) who also play a vital role as sceptics with power to be listened to, power via legal processes (e.g. product liability, contracts) and freedom to go to the competitor. To my mind the culture and processes in and around how we do science is the opposite of engineering in many important areas because it has different motivations and responsibilities and failure is not as obvious or so easy to explain away as e.g. a large passenger plane falling out of the sky. Compared to engineering I think science uses scepticism different ways, different times, stifling innovation (if it doesn't agree with its preconceptions, but helping it if it does) or dismissing concerns as an idea gains ground, (e.g. putting the problem back in your court rather than theirs, often the only way to have your concerns considered is if you meet their approval as a suitable scientist and through peer reviewed papers which takes time, needs resources, funding which may be difficult to find, battling opposition, risking reputations so few are prepared to make the effort and take the risks), how it handles anecdotal information and precautionary principle, validating via an apparent consensus of approved experts.

So my suggestion is perhaps the legal community, thinking about their role in protecting consumers and innocent victims and how it does so might be one way to challenge this and start improving the way things are done.