Simon Dolan seeking judicial Review of government’s lockdown - AIBU to think he is a selfish pr**k?

[Userwhatevernumber]

A multi-millionaire is taking the government to court to challenge the lockdown restrictions. He is seeking judicial review of the decision to enforce lockdown.

Fair enough if he wanted to use his own multi-millions to find this. But no, he is actually crowdfunding. He is seeking to raise £125,000 from the public. At a time when he himself has already acknowledged the suffering economy.

AIBU to think this is total selfishness and that he is just another white, rich privileged man thinking he can play the hero and save us all when all the while he is only out for himself?

😡

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/law/2020/may/01/uk-government-faces-legal-challenge-coronavirus-lockdown-businessman-simon-dolan

www.crowdjustice.com/case/lockdownlegalchallenge/

Article 2 of the ECHR: The right to life.

*Premature end to lockdown

Why is race always brought into it

His colour is irrelevant and the assumption that his argument has a racist undertone is just fucking ridiculous

Bluntness. The coronavirus act gives the police the right to fine people unless rgey have a legitimate reason to be out. The people saying nothing are not people standing up to their right to a private life. They are the drug dealers who would prefer a £60 fine than having their car searched. Agree this Monaco based man is probably a greedy, tax dodging, coronavirus profit making fuck, but I would love to see transcripts of the SAGE meetings and what Dominic Cummings has been saying

ViVii race is relevant as it's the BAME community being disproportionately affected (together with men and older people). When someone knowingly does something that they know will harm the BAME community more than white people, that's racism - indirectly maybe, but racism nevertheless.

No, not art 2 right to life, not in these circumstances.

Art 2 is being protected from being executed by the state. Not being told to stay in doors.

The people saying nothing are not people standing up to their right to a private life, They are the drug dealers who would prefer a £60 fine than having their car searched.

Total bollocks. Its such a weak argument. 'Those who are bothered are cleraly doing something wrong' doesn't even stand up to scrutinity and is something people to say to try and get others to shut up.

My aunt got a knock the other day. She had been reported for having visitors. She had. My mum. My aunt fell over, the nearest help was mum on the next street, who went helped her up and left. My uncle has been ill for a while and is to frail to get her up. They called 111 who said an ambulance would come but could be a long wait.

Mum went and helped and left.

My aunt ended up showing the police her bruises. To prove what happened. The police have been sat with a car across her drive for a couple of hours, every day for the last 3 days.

The policeman advised it was a 'friendly warning'. Which is bollocks because going into someone's house for medical need is allowed and not someghing someone can have a warning about.

How is that a right to a private life? Neither my aunt or uncle deal drugs. But they are very angry about this.

So what if he wants to do this. So what if he wants to crowd fund. Loads of people on crowd funding sites are well off.

Don't like it, don't donate money.

Toffee I'm sorry but challenging the government to provide evidence of their lock down strategy does not make it racist for goodness sake. Surely, if they can evidence that this is a planned stragegy they will also be able to provide evidence of how they are going to protect those communities that COVID affects most. Saying that asking questions equates to racism is disingenuous in the largest degree.

I’m fully supportive and have donated £20 to this campaign and urge others who value our ancient liberties to do the same.

Sometimes the fact they we could do something doesn't mean we should.
It's waste of resources.

I have the right to be alive.
I have the right to protect my family
I have the right to be pissed off if infected by someone else because they refuse to isolate or take sensible precautions.
I have the right not to want to die before my time.
I have the right to NOT want to be hospitalised, subject to invasive procedures etc because of some selfish twat who thinks this is all a joke.
My parents have the same rights.

Peggy. I'm sorry about what happened to your aunt. And that she has neighbours who report on her. That's obviously an example if police not doing the job properly. But the eight to a private life is a qualified, not absolute right. And in extremist (I.e. public health emergency) it can be justifiably curbed. Which isn't to say what happened to your aunt was a proper application of those powers.

I've just had a closer read. Oh dear. This man sounds like a deluded megalomanic twat. What a waste of time and money. I reckon the gov may respond with the following:

Dear you.
Thank you for your letter. In response, may I refer you to the reply given in Arkell vs. Pressdram.
Yours,
Boris' solicitors. www.lettersofnote.com/2013/08/arkell-v-pressdram.html?m=1

@P999 why are you sorry?

And you are (probably purposely) missing the point. You said only drug dealers complain about right to privacy. I didnt say my aunt was right or I entirely agree. I am saying that you are absolutely wrong with your drug dealer comment.

Its like the threads about going through partners phone when they haven't done anything and the 'well why would you be bothered if you have nothing to hide'

Some people want privacy. They don't have to be doing anything wrong. Which is what you said.

Its a weak argument, to try and justify people accepting anything and shut debate down. So that people will think others think they are acting badly if the complain.

I actually don't have an opinion on what this man is doing. I am OK with the lockdown as is, in regards to our rights.

But your point about only drug dealers being bothered or saying it, is absolutely wrong.

But I suspect you knew the point I was making, but don't want to actually address that. So made some weird point, that's not relevant.

But the eight to a private life is a qualified, not absolute right. And in extremist (I.e. public health emergency) it can be justifiably curbed.

Hi @P999

You're quite right, but any interference with a qualified right must be proportionate. The argument in this case will not centre on whether the government has a legitimate aim for the restrictions. It clearly does, as you say: public health. It will turn on whether the interference with rights is proportionate - is whether the government has gone further than is necessary to achieve its legitimate aim.

He's right.

Where he lives is irrelevant to this particular discussion.

Oh dear. I think you missed the joke. But never mind. My fault for not adding an emoji i think. We all care about the right to privacy. But guess what. There's a global pandemic. The health systems ate overwhelmed and people are dying
This virus spreads like wildfire. Almost the entire globe has done lockdown. We don't live in a totalitarian state. So people should stop making out we are. Lockdown is in response to a virus. And in public health emergencies, temporary curbs are justified. Which isn't to say that disproportionate acts by over zealous police or nasty snitching by bored neighbours is ok. The fundamental point is this. A public health emergency justifies certain measures (And let's remember they're temporary) to prevent a greater harm. And these measures, of course, need to be reviewed regularly.

Where he lives is irrelevant to this particular discussion.

I agree - human rights belong to humans! Anyway, I suspect that if this case goes on to actual litigation his claim will be joined together with various other claimants with different complaints about the draconian effect of the regulations from other perspectives.

it wasn't a joke and you know it. Not even a hint at joke.

You posted and were surprised you were pulled up on it.

The fundamental point is this. A public health emergency justifies certain measures (And let's remember they're temporary) to prevent a greater harm. And these measures, of course, need to be reviewed regularly.

Hi P999, these are good points, but certainly ones which deserve scrutiny by the legal system.

Absolutely agree 're proportionate. 100%. But i think the argument that its disproportionate law is not going to fly. The law gives police a discretionary right to fine someone. In ireland, the fine is megabucks. Here, its low. Some policeman might be waving their dicks around and talking like arseholes. But that doesn't enter into this. And won't be relevant to a JD. This bloke is attention seeking, deluded and self serving. He is not doing this for the rights of UK citizens. He's a tax avoidance fuck who is only out for himself. I will be donating to MSF. Not this joke of a campaign. I know people are having a tough time. I am not for a second saying tough or suck it up. But this JD is about this man worrying about his millions. It's not about anything else

What a prat - the government will have to defend this and more money that could have gone to the NHS will go into the pockets of lawyers.

Peggy, am genuinely sorry if I offended you. It's a joke in my household (and it probably says something about the area I live in) that the dealers are sticking out like a sore thumb in my parts. And i wasn't trying to minimise the struggles people are having. I just meant to introduce some perspective. This is a public health emergency. The motivation for curbing these rights is not about some dictator trying to keep a tight hold on power. But to stem the spread of a pandemic. Also, in terms of the powers the police have, when you scrutinise them, they are probably easily defensible in terms of proportionality. The fine is a. Discretionary. b. Not a high one by other countries' standards. I felt angry reading how this self serving Monaco based tax avoidance shit was trying to dress himself up as a saviour if our rights. When the reality is, he's a scumbag (and I know his type. My ex BIL is one of them. In fact, would surprise me if they are business associates)

P999 if it is proportionate then the government will have no problem in responding accordingly will they?