Jump to content

COPY AND PASTED MY RESPONSE TO COVID-19 CERTIFICATION TO HELP OTHERS


Net Curtains
 Share

Recommended Posts

COVID-Status Certification Review - Call for evidence - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

 

image.png.5988197a1d902dc1acdbd2c6d26549f0.png

 

I am the son of a hardworking mother, I am the son of a heavy drinking, abusive dad, I am the brother to a overweight truckdriver, I am the nephew to  Aunty with MS, I am the husband to a beautiful wife, I am a dad to a wonderful little girl, I am a human being, a person, a man. I am just like you a person that lives and breathes. Like all of us.....i am more than your.......... a) b) c) categories.

 image.png.39166a75a6714e2cc8056881f43b2234.png

 

  1. If a person chooses to show their covid status in the form of certification that is their choice and should be respected. If a person says NO to the certification scheme that is their choice and should be respected.
  2. If a person wishes to reject this scheme on behalf of himself, herself or their children then these people get discriminated against, persecuted, then I think this breaks many many many laws. Morally  wrong
  3. It should be made absolutely clear upon on delivery to every man,woman and child that this is not a legal requirement and upon delivery of the operation that any company or organisation have no legal power to reject the people who say NO. My personal information is my information including my medical information. I just want to make it clear on this COVID-status certification scheme you describe..........all vaccine manufacturers direct information states quite clearly these vaccines do not stop a vaccinated individual from spreading the virus. Making such scheme highly irrelevant.
  4. Due to vaccinated people still being able to spread the virus, it should be made clear to venues that just because a person has a certificate stating their vaccination status, this does not mean a thing in the grand scheme of things, because a 20 year old vaccinated person spreads the disease as does a 20 year old non-vaccinated person. A venue could however use this as a tool, for example in past history pubs used to have smoking rooms, and sometimes non-smokers would still use these room of their own free will. If people who have had the vaccine wish to remain separate from the people who haven’t and a venue would like to facilitate this need, then this should be respected, but great work should be done to make sure people (and encourage people to) live in harmony and respect each others bodies and rights.
  5. ALL EMPLOYERS NEED TO ACT WITH DIGNITY, RESPECT, DECENCY. ALL HUMAN BEINGS NO MATTER RACE,COLOUR, CREED OR ‘’MEDICAL COVID STUTUS’’ SHOULD BE TREATED DIFFERENTLY. WE ARE EQUAL, EACH AND EVERYONE OF US AND ANY ORGANISATION, COORPORATION, GROUP THAT DOES NOT THINK THIS SHOULD BE DISBANDED,BROKEN UP OR MET WITH SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAWS. AND IF THESE LAWS DONT EXIST THEY SHOULD BE PUT IN PLACE.BUT THESE LAWS DO EXIST... IF INTERPRETED IN THE RIGHT MANNER!
  6. It is ethically and morally the wrong thing to do, and just because other countries require a ‘’COVID-status passport’’ does NOT mean a supposedly free country like the UK should do the same. If this government wants to truly represent its people, it should go to countries that we travel to and negotiate safe passage and indiscriminate access for all its citizens. For example if Turkey decide against letting non-vaccinated people in its country, then the UK government should make a stand and take our ‘’Tourism pie’’ elsewhere. Some countries depend on the UK. This government clearly does not represent the entire population. A government should serve its people, not serve other countries or organisations. My dream is one day we have a government that fights for the liberty of its people as a whole.
  7. It is obvious that being forced to identify has ‘’INFECTED’’, ‘’NOT INFECTED’’, ‘’VACCINATED’’ , ‘’NOT VACCINATED’’ is not considering any form of ‘’EQUALITY’’.
  8. Privacy? Please.........sitting down writing this response actually makes me feel physically sick. I privacy consideration should be to scrap this whole idea. Unite people....do not divide.

 

image.png.6bfcca90842809b669afff646506a444.png

If you are the person reading this and given the job of interpreting the responses, I would like you to just think about this idea for one moment. I would like to think about the pressure it would put on people to have a vaccine. I would like you to think of who this benefits. Think about who will prosper. Now im not anti-vaccine, im not anti-tech, im not anti-future. People die from medical procedures all the time. If 1 million heart bypasses are carried out and 100 people die, I wouldn’t call for the end of heart bypass operations. This is not what this is about. The evidence on this virus is clear for us all to see and the people it affects. The evidence is clear that if you are over the age of 65 then a vaccine might be worth considering and at this age you might prefer to go on Vaccinated only cruises, I don’t know why because if you’ve had your vaccine then you still have exactly the same chance of catching it regardless of who surrounds you, it lowers the chances of severity of illness according to the scientific data released by the vaccine manufacturers, but this would be a choice. If we takeaway the freedom of people who choose to take their chances on a virus, and some of these people are over the age of 65, what kind of country are we running. People do die from vaccines, this is a fact. What if we bring this in, and people who were not going to have it, take the vaccine and suffer a severe reaction, what if a parent who knew they weren’t at a high risk of severity of illness, understands that data and knows her daughter or son has little chance of even having symtoms, but wants to go on holiday, or a music concert without being discriminated against or turned away,or forced to have a swab shoved down her families nasal passage, what if this person through this pressure decided to submit,then vaccinated her 12 year old daughter or son, what if this child has a reaction that renders them death or blind (both officially documented reactions to COVID-19 vaccinations) for the rest of their life, what does this mean we are as people? The beauty of nature is it is totally indiscriminate. The beauty of all viruses including coronaviruses is we do not have to make this choice, neither does any man woman or child. Mother nature and its bacteria will take a life without asking you to show your ‘’COVID-status’’.

 

Something like this as big as this, these are not the decisions of real men and women, these are not the actions of a peaceful loving society, we should be world leaders in making sure these kind of tyrannical measure are not enforced anywhere on this earth. Great Britain should be beacon, Great Britain should be what countries strive to be. We should fight against discrimination, we should fight for the Human Rights of every living person,we should take on corporations, we should challenge the pharmaceutical industry, we should fight for the few, we should declare WAR on any single or united entity that thinks this sort of thing should even be considered. I am appalled, I am disgusted and I am ashamed. People will die from this decision by being coerced, it doesn’t matter if its 1 life or 10....this is very different from choosing medical intervention and dying. This decision is murder. Just like the decision not to treat cancer patients.

 

We are not machines, We are not cattle, we are human beings.

 

FREEDOM WILL PREVAIL IF WE CHOOSE TO MAKE IT HAPPEN.

 

FREEDOM!

 

 

Thank you

 

Mat Watson

 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, mathewtwatson said:

COVID-Status Certification Review - Call for evidence - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

 

image.png.5988197a1d902dc1acdbd2c6d26549f0.png

 

I am the son of a hardworking mother, I am the son of a heavy drinking, abusive dad, I am the brother to a overweight truckdriver, I am the nephew to  Aunty with MS, I am the husband to a beautiful wife, I am a dad to a wonderful little girl, I am a human being, a person, a man. I am just like you a person that lives and breathes. Like all of us.....i am more than your.......... a) b) c) categories.

 image.png.39166a75a6714e2cc8056881f43b2234.png

 

  1. If a person chooses to show their covid status in the form of certification that is their choice and should be respected. If a person says NO to the certification scheme that is their choice and should be respected.
  2. If a person wishes to reject this scheme on behalf of himself, herself or their children then these people get discriminated against, persecuted, then I think this breaks many many many laws. Morally  wrong
  3. It should be made absolutely clear upon on delivery to every man,woman and child that this is not a legal requirement and upon delivery of the operation that any company or organisation have no legal power to reject the people who say NO. My personal information is my information including my medical information. I just want to make it clear on this COVID-status certification scheme you describe..........all vaccine manufacturers direct information states quite clearly these vaccines do not stop a vaccinated individual from spreading the virus. Making such scheme highly irrelevant.
  4. Due to vaccinated people still being able to spread the virus, it should be made clear to venues that just because a person has a certificate stating their vaccination status, this does not mean a thing in the grand scheme of things, because a 20 year old vaccinated person spreads the disease as does a 20 year old non-vaccinated person. A venue could however use this as a tool, for example in past history pubs used to have smoking rooms, and sometimes non-smokers would still use these room of their own free will. If people who have had the vaccine wish to remain separate from the people who haven’t and a venue would like to facilitate this need, then this should be respected, but great work should be done to make sure people (and encourage people to) live in harmony and respect each others bodies and rights.
  5. ALL EMPLOYERS NEED TO ACT WITH DIGNITY, RESPECT, DECENCY. ALL HUMAN BEINGS NO MATTER RACE,COLOUR, CREED OR ‘’MEDICAL COVID STUTUS’’ SHOULD BE TREATED DIFFERENTLY. WE ARE EQUAL, EACH AND EVERYONE OF US AND ANY ORGANISATION, COORPORATION, GROUP THAT DOES NOT THINK THIS SHOULD BE DISBANDED,BROKEN UP OR MET WITH SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAWS. AND IF THESE LAWS DONT EXIST THEY SHOULD BE PUT IN PLACE.BUT THESE LAWS DO EXIST... IF INTERPRETED IN THE RIGHT MANNER!
  6. It is ethically and morally the wrong thing to do, and just because other countries require a ‘’COVID-status passport’’ does NOT mean a supposedly free country like the UK should do the same. If this government wants to truly represent its people, it should go to countries that we travel to and negotiate safe passage and indiscriminate access for all its citizens. For example if Turkey decide against letting non-vaccinated people in its country, then the UK government should make a stand and take our ‘’Tourism pie’’ elsewhere. Some countries depend on the UK. This government clearly does not represent the entire population. A government should serve its people, not serve other countries or organisations. My dream is one day we have a government that fights for the liberty of its people as a whole.
  7. It is obvious that being forced to identify has ‘’INFECTED’’, ‘’NOT INFECTED’’, ‘’VACCINATED’’ , ‘’NOT VACCINATED’’ is not considering any form of ‘’EQUALITY’’.
  8. Privacy? Please.........sitting down writing this response actually makes me feel physically sick. I privacy consideration should be to scrap this whole idea. Unite people....do not divide.

 

image.png.6bfcca90842809b669afff646506a444.png

If you are the person reading this and given the job of interpreting the responses, I would like you to just think about this idea for one moment. I would like to think about the pressure it would put on people to have a vaccine. I would like you to think of who this benefits. Think about who will prosper. Now im not anti-vaccine, im not anti-tech, im not anti-future. People die from medical procedures all the time. If 1 million heart bypasses are carried out and 100 people die, I wouldn’t call for the end of heart bypass operations. This is not what this is about. The evidence on this virus is clear for us all to see and the people it affects. The evidence is clear that if you are over the age of 65 then a vaccine might be worth considering and at this age you might prefer to go on Vaccinated only cruises, I don’t know why because if you’ve had your vaccine then you still have exactly the same chance of catching it regardless of who surrounds you, it lowers the chances of severity of illness according to the scientific data released by the vaccine manufacturers, but this would be a choice. If we takeaway the freedom of people who choose to take their chances on a virus, and some of these people are over the age of 65, what kind of country are we running. People do die from vaccines, this is a fact. What if we bring this in, and people who were not going to have it, take the vaccine and suffer a severe reaction, what if a parent who knew they weren’t at a high risk of severity of illness, understands that data and knows her daughter or son has little chance of even having symtoms, but wants to go on holiday, or a music concert without being discriminated against or turned away,or forced to have a swab shoved down her families nasal passage, what if this person through this pressure decided to submit,then vaccinated her 12 year old daughter or son, what if this child has a reaction that renders them death or blind (both officially documented reactions to COVID-19 vaccinations) for the rest of their life, what does this mean we are as people? The beauty of nature is it is totally indiscriminate. The beauty of all viruses including coronaviruses is we do not have to make this choice, neither does any man woman or child. Mother nature and its bacteria will take a life without asking you to show your ‘’COVID-status’’.

 

Something like this as big as this, these are not the decisions of real men and women, these are not the actions of a peaceful loving society, we should be world leaders in making sure these kind of tyrannical measure are not enforced anywhere on this earth. Great Britain should be beacon, Great Britain should be what countries strive to be. We should fight against discrimination, we should fight for the Human Rights of every living person,we should take on corporations, we should challenge the pharmaceutical industry, we should fight for the few, we should declare WAR on any single or united entity that thinks this sort of thing should even be considered. I am appalled, I am disgusted and I am ashamed. People will die from this decision by being coerced, it doesn’t matter if its 1 life or 10....this is very different from choosing medical intervention and dying. This decision is murder. Just like the decision not to treat cancer patients.

 

We are not machines, We are not cattle, we are human beings.

 

FREEDOM WILL PREVAIL IF WE CHOOSE TO MAKE IT HAPPEN.

 

FREEDOM!

 

 

Thank you

 

Mat Watson

 

 

Well, my answers could have fitted on the back of a postage stamp as it suggested they wanted a brief response, but I sooo wish I had read yours powerful response before I submitted mine!! 👍

😄

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Save Our Rights have put together a template letter as a response to this consultation. This can be sent via the Save Our Rights website via the first link below. The deadline is tomorrow 29th March 2021.

 

https://saveourrights.uk/covid-status-certificates/

 

https://saveourrights.uk/covid-status-certificates/letter/

 

Quote

COVID Status Certification Letter

Dear Sir/Madam,

 

(Re: Covid-Status Certificate Review- Call for Evidence)

 

I have grave concerns over recent rhetoric, from government and private businesses, regarding the introduction of Covid-Status certificates and/or vaccine/immunity passports1 and I set out my legal, ethical, and medical objections below.

 

Please see my responses to the questions below.

 

QUESTION 1

 

Which of the following best describes the capacity in which you are responding to this call for evidence?

 

(g) I am an individual.

 

QUESTION 2 

 

In your view, what are the key considerations, including opportunities and risks, associated with a potential COVID-status certification scheme? 

 

a) clinical / medical considerations

  • There is no scientific evidence that Covid-19 vaccines prevent either infection with or transmission of Sars-CoV-2, as the clinical trials were not designed to assess these endpoints2. Therefore, the Covid-19 vaccines have not been shown to have a wider public health benefit beyond the vaccinee3.
  • There is currently no knowledge of the duration of any protective effect from vaccination beyond 3 months, or whether subsequent booster doses may be required, and how frequently4.
  • There is evidence that naturally acquired immunity from Covid-19 is long-lasting5 6, yet ‘Immunity Passports’ are only proposed for vaccinated individuals and not those who have had Covid-19 and have natural immunity. This is discriminatory.
  • Covid-19 vaccines are still experimental and under emergency-use authorisation. Clinical safety trials will not be completed until the beginning of 2023.
  • There is currently only limited short-term safety data and NO long-term safety data to rule out late onset side-effects such as autoimmune diseases, neurological conditions, infertility. or cancers, for any of the Covid-19 vaccines.
  • Many of the Covid-19 vaccines are based on a completely novel technology (mRNA vaccines) that has never previously been approved for use in humans, therefore long-term safety cannot be inferred.
  • Since the Covid-19 vaccine rollout began in December 2020, there already have been thousands of reports of serious adverse events and deaths to the VAERS Database in the US7, the Eudravigilance Database in Europe8 and the MHRA in the UK9.
  • Concerns that Covid-19 vaccines may cause antibody-dependent immune enhancement (ADE) have not been addressed in any clinical trials on humans or animals. ADE causes an exaggerated immune response on exposure to coronaviruses following vaccination, leading to more severe illness10. This possibility has not been ruled out and is a known and accepted risk to those who accept the vaccines.
  • It is unethical and unlawful to bring in any measure that puts pressure on an individual to submit themselves to a medical intervention that is still experimental and for which the long-term safety profile is unknown.

b) legal considerations

  • Vaccine/Immunity Passports will face legal challenges using current human rights and equality laws.
  • The International Health Regulations (IHR) 2005 prohibit health measures that are discriminatory and impede international travel11. However, the UK does not have laws to expressly address discrimination experienced by those without “immune privilege”. The IHR (2005) and other international laws require states to respect human rights and avoid discrimination. Under the IHR, states must comply with their obligations to report additional measures, to base measures on scientific principles and evidence, and to use the least restrictive measures available12.
  • The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe passed Resolution number 2361 of 2021 on 27 January 202125, in which it was stated that:

• Paragraph 7.3.1 – ensure that citizens are informed that the vaccination is NOT mandatory and that no one is politically, socially, or otherwise pressured to get themselves vaccinated, if they do not wish to do so themselves

• Paragraph 7.3.2 – ensure that no one is discriminated against for not having been vaccinated, due to possible health risks or not wanting to be vaccinated.

  • The Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights protects an individual’s bodily autonomy, the right to informed consent and the right to refuse medical interventions without penalty or restriction. It states that any preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention must only be carried out with the prior, free, and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information. The consent should, where appropriate, be express and may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without disadvantage or prejudice13.
  • Tory MP Steve Baker recently raised the issue of “implicit coercion” in Parliament, saying:

“Will [you] agree with me, it’s not enough for the government merely to refrain from coercing people, the government’s also got to pay attention to implicit coercion. That is, if the government turns a blind eye to allowing businesses like airlines and restaurants to refuse to let people in unless they’ve had the vaccination. The government’s got to decide whether it’s willing to allow people to discriminate on that basis.” 14

  • Given the significant risk to individual basic freedoms and division in society, it is urgent that the UK government passes domestic legislation to make it illegal for businesses to discriminate against those who have not been vaccinated and to outlaw Vaccine Passports.

c) operational / delivery considerations

  • A certification system delivered via smartphones or other technologies would exclude those unable or unwilling to use such devices. 
  • Digital infrastructure for a certification scheme would be a target for cybercriminals. 
  • Costs of operating and delivering such a system would be an astronomical financial burden and poor use of taxpayers’ money.
  • The government’s track record of operating and delivering technologies during the pandemic is poor – Test & Trace had many failings.

d) considerations relating to the operation of venues that could use a potential COVID-status certification scheme

  • Organisations would need to consider the legal and financial consequences of discriminating against members of the public based on vaccine status where goods and/or services have been purchased under contract or similar terms and conditions (e.g. season tickets for sports teams, pre-booked holidays and flights, etc).
  • A digitised certification scheme would not be compatible with certain public venues, including schools and hospitals where the use of digital devices such as smartphones can present certain risks.  

e) considerations relating to the responsibilities or actions of employers under a potential COVID-status certification scheme

  • There may be costly legal ramifications for employers that might terminate a person’s employment based on the COVID certification status. 
  • It would take a considerable amount of time for employers to become sufficiently aware of the legal framework that would surround COVID certification. Such a framework could be burdensome for employers and hamper British industries in their hiring processes.

f) ethical considerations

 

The concept of issuing vaccine passports has significant scientific, ethical, legal, social, economic, and political implications 15. The government has denied it will make Covid-19 vaccines mandatory, as that would breach human rights laws and be disastrous for public relations. However, the introduction of an official government Vaccine Passport would result in an indirect mandate, allowing pressure to be applied by private companies and other authorities, who will be able to demand a valid Vaccine Passport as a condition of service provision.

 

Under existing laws against discrimination16, the government may not be able to prevent businesses from requiring proof of vaccination and may only be able to issue a warning against it, which would have no legal standing. Parliament must update the legislation as a matter of urgency. International Health Regulations prohibit health measures that are discriminatory and impede international travel17. UK laws should provide the same protections for its citizens.

 

Furthermore, there are significant concerns about unlawful practices within the government, whereby government officials award lucrative contracts to friends and family members, as was the case with Health Secretary Matt Hancock who has been deemed to have acted ‘unlawfully’. 

 

g) equalities considerations

  • People unable or unwilling to have Covid-19 tests or vaccines, will not be able to “prove” their health status, thus having their basic freedoms de facto restricted.
  • Vaccine/Immunity Passports risk enshrining such discrimination in law and undermine the right to health, of individuals and the population18.
  • Vaccine Passports would be amenable to both corruption and implicit bias. They may exacerbate the harm inflicted by Covid-19 on already vulnerable people, who may be more hesitant to seek medical care due to discriminatory access. Any large-scale deployment of Vaccine Passports could disproportionately segment society and breach rights to equality and non-discrimination.
  • Labelling people based on their Covid-19 immunity or vaccine status may fuel a societal stratification along lines of access to medical care, housing, education, public transport, cultural events, hospitality, travel, etc. This concern was raised by the Information Commissioner who stated that issuing ‘freedom passports’ to people who have been vaccinated would risk creating “a two-tier society” 19.
  • Labelling people based on their Covid-19 immunity status may exacerbate conflict between groups of citizens with the potential for violence and breakdown of society.
  • In workplaces, there is a serious risk that social and financial inequalities may be amplified under a system that disenfranchises unvaccinated employees. If a Vaccine Passport limits the duties that workers can take on, outcomes may be devastating for their livelihoods and lead to polarisation within society.

h) privacy considerations

 

COVID certifications pose essential questions for the protection of data privacy and human rights, given that they use sensitive personal health information to create a new distinction between individuals based on their health status, which can be used to determine the degree of freedoms individuals may enjoy.

 

QUESTION 3

 

Are there any other comments you would like to make to inform the COVID-status certification review?

 

Global context 

 

The WHO released a statement on 15 January 2021 saying that it was opposed “for the time being” to the introduction of “vaccine passports” against COVID-19 as a condition for allowing international travellers entry into other countries, stating, “There are still too many fundamental unknowns in terms of the effectiveness of vaccines in reducing (virus) transmission and vaccines are still only available in limited quantities” 20 

 

Despite the WHO’s position, there appears to be a global push towards restriction on individual liberty using health and immunity passports.  The highly influential World Economic Forum (WEF) has been promoting the idea of Covid-19 Passports for several months, as part of their “Great Reset” agenda21. The new digital “Common Pass” health passport scheme, backed by the WEF, was piloted for the first time in October, for passengers flying from the UK to the US22

 

In November 2020, the Chinese leader Xi Jinping, in his address to other world leaders at the virtual G20 summit, promoted the Chinese model of QR access codes, based on health certificates, to re-enable international travel.  Many non-governmental organisations and private corporations are lobbying governments for this technology to be adopted around the world, including the Tony Blair Institute23.  This demand is not coming from the public and overrides the democratic process. 

Private companies are also working on bringing in their own versions of Vaccine Passports such as IATA and IAG, the parent company of British Airways and Iberia.  They have been working on a digital passport system to “manage, share and verify test data matched with traveller identities” to support the safe reopening of borders. The IATA Travel Pass comprises four key parts: a global registry of health requirements, a global registry of testing and vaccination centres, an app for labs and test centres to upload test and vaccination certificates, and an app for passengers to access these certificates, share them with airlines and authorities and to operate as a digital ‘passport’.24  This would constitute a gross intrusion into the private lives and medical information of individuals by a private company and governments. 

 

In Israel – who have vaccinated a higher proportion of their population than any other country – a disturbing rhetoric is coming from their government.  Israeli Health Minister Yuli Edelstein wants to encourage widespread vaccination by offering advantages to those who take the vaccine, and by limiting the options of those who do not.  He is quoted as saying “Whoever doesn’t vaccinate will only go out to supermarkets or pharmacies, while the vaccinated will go to stadiums and gyms”25.

Iceland and Denmark have also recently announced plans to adopt Vaccine Passports26 27, and the EU has also raised the possibility of EU Covid-19 Vaccine Passports28

 

Proposed Medical Freedom Bill to Safeguard UK Citizens

 

Save Our Rights, supported by the UK Medical Freedom Alliance and Lawyers for Liberty are currently campaigning, through lobbying MPs and Government, for a Medical Freedom Bill to be brought into law which actively protects and preserves individual medical freedom and bodily autonomy, and to ensure that no individual can be discriminated against, penalised or have restrictions imposed on them, based on their vaccine status29. I urge the government to support this important addition to individual legal protections for UK citizens. 

 

Conclusion 

 

In the context of the much-hailed success of the UK Covid-19 vaccine rollout and the desperate public desire for a return to normal life and freedom, I urge the government to allow a return to individual responsibility for our own health.  

 

After a difficult and damaging year of unprecedented and draconian restrictions, which have removed so many of our rights and freedoms in the name of Covid-19, it is disproportionate and unnecessary to go down the route of further restrictions and loss of freedoms that a Vaccine/Immunity Passport would entail.  It would permanently increase state power over our lives and set a dangerous precedent, which would effectively require the public to accept all vaccines and boosters that the Government or private businesses wish to add to the passport requirements in the future, to be able to enjoy basic human freedoms of movement and association.  Vaccine Passports have no place in a democratic and free society and would be a profoundly illiberal, undemocratic, and un-British policy. I urge the government not to pursue this dangerous path. 

 

Thank you for considering the concerns detailed in this email. I would be grateful if you could confirm receipt of this email, and if possible details of exactly how it will be reviewed.

 

Yours faithfully,

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...