Miri AF

Massive missives and more

A Collection of Correspondence Concomitant to the Corona circus Crisis

(All letters can be found here, a selection are printed below)

Letter to Local Council Regarding a "COVID-19 Update" They Sent To Me

(their letter pictured at footer)


22nd July, 2020


Dear Cllr. Shabir Pandor, Jacqui Gedman, and Rachel Spencer-Henshall,


Re: Coronavirus COVID-19 Update


I received through my letterbox today an unsolicited correspondence, addressed only to "The Occupier" and with the above-referenced title, signed by yourselves.


As you make a number of very extreme claims in your letter, followed by demands that I modify my behaviour in extraordinary and unprecedented ways, and as I as a taxpayer am bankrolling this correspondence campaign (which must have cost we taxpayers at least £100,000, a princely sum whilst the country plunges into the worst recession in 300 years), I feel obliged to request some further information from you. 


In the first instance, I am perplexed and concerned by the language used. You say: "Everyone needs to follow the rules on social distancing, handwashing and isolating." Please can you define what "needs" and "rules" mean in this context? What are "rules"? They are not laws, and the government guidelines on social distancing, handwashing and isolating are just that - guidelines, not legal obligations. So I ask for precise clarity on what you are purporting to convey, as it appears to me that you are being intentionally ambiguous with language in order to generate the impression these guidelines are the law and that not adhering to them would criminalise somebody, when in fact - as you are no doubt well aware - this is not the case.  Deciding to abide by these guidelines or not is entirely voluntary, and it is incumbent on you as a publicly-funded body to make this unambiguously clear in your communications with the public, including and especially vulnerable members of the public who could be left very distressed by the insinuation they are breaking the law if they choose not to abide by these guidelines. It concerns me very deeply to think of the impact your comminatory correspondence could have on fragile individuals, such as the elderly, those with learning disabilities or suffering mental health complaints - the latter being an ever-increasing group in these extraordinarily challenging times. 


You go on to suggest in your letter that the reason people "need to" follow these "rules" is that you feel doing so will reduce the spread of a virus you refer to as COVID-19. As you are of the opinion this virus is a serious enough threat to justify your issuing draconian diktats as to what people may and may not do with their bodies, up to and including hugging members of their own family, I presume you have unequivocal proof that this virus actually exists. If you do, please share it with me, because as yet, no such proof exists, and this is the subject of a current challenge to the British government from top scientists including Dr Kevin Corbett, Piers Corbyn, David Crowe, Dr Andrew Kaufman, Dr David Rasnick and Professor Roger Watson. Please see here for more information: https://kevinpcorbett.com/onewebmedia/WHERE%20IS%20THE%20EVIDENCE%20FOR%20THE%20EXISTENCE%20OF%20THE%20CORONAVIRUS%20FINAL.pdf


You then go on to issue a number of arbitrary and deeply disturbing demands, regarding people refraining from touching loved one (when human touch is known to be a vital component of psychological good health, something that is more important than ever at a time when mental health is being severely challenged), and wearing "face coverings" (or "muzzles", as the journalist Peter Hitchens calls them) which restrict optimal oxygen flow, have a number of significant and potentially severely detrimental effects on health, and have no proven effect on preventing the transmission of a virus that may or may not exist. If you believe otherwise, please show me the studies that unequivocally prove your assertions, because they are notable by their absence in your letter. 


Your letter continues, "[t}hanks to your efforts, some of our freedoms have now returned", May I ask who or what you believe owns our freedoms, and therefore is able to remove and restore them at will? Please allow me to clarify that no such entity exists. Freedoms are inalienable rights - the clue is in the word - and they do not belong to any individual or body. They certainly do not belong to the government. The government is, by definition, the servant of the people, and as such, has only one legitimate job - to protect our rights. The freedom to live our lives as we choose, including leaving our houses when we please, seeing and touching who we want, and retaining privacy from government snooping whilst we do these things, are rights we are born with, and the government hasn't the authority to grant them or take them away, unless we actively break the law, which is why each and every "lockdown" (a prison term) measure the government has imposed is wholly illegitimate and likely illegal, as the businessman Simon Dolan is in the process of proving in court. See here for more information: https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/lockdownlegalchallenge:/.


Let me be very clear that the government has no right to impose itself on our lives and livelihoods, issuing despotic demands to close down our businesses and track our movements. It is immaterial whether the government believes these measures are "good for our health" because it is not the government's job to protect our health. I have signed no contractual agreement with the government or their representatives in local councils stating that my health is their responsibility, and neither has any other individual in this country. My health, and the measures I take to either protect or risk it (providing they break no laws), are the business of one individual only - me. The same applies to every other autonomous adult in the country. The government may issue "guidelines" of what it believes are healthy behaviours, but it has no legitimacy whatsoever to impose its beliefs via menace and threats as it is currently attempting to do. What next, expensive tax-payer funded correspondence campaigns threatening us with house-arrest, solitary confinement, debilitating illness and premature death if we do not eat our government-recommended five portions of vegetables a day? After all, poor diets are responsible for far more illness and death than cold viruses that may or may not exist, so why not?


The answer to that question, as I have repeatedly stated, is that the government has no business or legitimacy insinuating itself into forcibly controlling the national health.


To return to your letter: it informs people that they "must" conform with the NHS "track and trace" scheme. This is a grave misrepresentation and misnomer: no, they must not; participation in this scheme is entirely voluntary, as has been underlined by every responsible institution who attempts to "track and trace" their patrons. I have visited many venues since the "track and trace" programme began, and if asked for my details, I have informed them this scheme is voluntary and I do not wish to participate in it. Most venues accept this unquestioningly, and the ones who do not, do not receive my custom but do receive a letter of complaint to their head office detailing to them what the law is, which neither they nor apparently you seem to know. "Track and trace" is not the law; the GDPR is the law, and as has been revealed this week and as many campaigners warned when it was launched, track and trace is not only not the law, it, in fact, contravenes the law: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-53466471


So by informing Kirklees residents they "must" participate in track and trace, you are not just misleading them, you are actively encouraging them to flout the law. You then attempt to incarcerate them via kangaroo courts, by informing them that, if they receive a call from a state operative with an anonymous tip-off, they must immediately enter house-arrest for weeks with no right to challenge or appeal. This is the stuff of dictatorships and banana republics, not first-world liberal democracies, and it is a scandal and a disgrace that you are using taxpayer's money to attempt to further menace people into complying with this sinister farce. Please allow me to make clear that if an NHS "track and tracer" contacts me, I will be taking their details and reporting them to the Data Commissioner for their complicity in criminal activity. 


Your letter also instructs people that if they experience "symptoms" (of the common cold) they "must" call 111 to arrange a test. Please can you explain why you are advising people to take a test which its own creator, biochemist Kary B.Mullis, states should never be used for the diagnosis of viral infection (bearing in mind the virus it purports to test for has not even been proven to exist), and that has been widely reported in the press as being "contaminated"? We have not been advised what these tests are contaminated with, so clearly, it is grotesquely irresponsible for you to be pressurising people into taking a test which is not only a thoroughly unreliable diagnostic tool, but that may also contain unknown contaminants and therefore could gravely undermine their health.  Further, your use of the word "must" again requires disambiguation and clarity. What does "must" mean to you? What do you expect it to mean to the recipients of your letter? There is no legal requirement for people to be tested or to isolate if they do not wish to do so, so please explain what you are attempting to convey and why you are not making the actual legal position clear to recipients of your unsolicited, taxpayer-funded correspondence. 


Your letter continues to declare that "we can't" shake hands or hug people. This is patently absurd. Of course, we can, we are fully capable of doing so, and what's more, fully legally and morally entitled to do so. Again, it very much appears to me, as a professionally trained and very experienced writer, that you are intentionally using language in an ambiguous way in an attempt to intimidate people into believing they have some sort of legal obligation to follow your demands when of course, they don't, and again, you are guilty of potentially causing very severe distress to vulnerable people by your ambiguity and insinuations. 


In closing, I am expecting a very detailed response to my letter addressing every concern I raise, including the citation of studies that I have asked for. If you cannot provide the evidence I seek, including and especially irrefutable proof that the COVID-19 virus exists, then I will be investigating you further on suspicion of using public funds to disseminate malicious and threatening propaganda, which may constitute a charge of domestic terrorism. Petrifying the public with threats of severe illness and death if they do not comply with your authoritarian demands of extreme behaviour modification is a very serious matter indeed and may need to involve the police. 


Please note the only further communication I wish to receive from Kirklees Council in regards to COVID-19 is in response to my letter, and if I receive any other communications of the nature of your initial correspondence, that include threats of illness/death and demands to control my behaviour, I will consider it harassment and respond accordingly. 


I expect a comprehensive response to my letter by August 23rd, 2020 (one calendar month from the day you receive this letter), or I will take this matter further.


A copy of this letter is also being sent, via recorded delivery, to Barry Sheerman MP, with whom I have engaged in extensive correspondence regarding the coronavirus situation since March of this year. Mr. Sheerman and the three named recipients of this letter will also be receiving it in electronic form.


Yours sincerely,


Miri Finch


(Find this letter permanently, including pictures, at:  https://miriaf.webs.com/kirkleescouncilcovid19)


Letter to Wetherspoon Pub Regarding Intimidation of Customers and Data Protection Law, 20/07/2020


Dear Sir / Madam,


I visited your pub on Saturday 18th July 2020, hoping to enjoy a relaxed meal and drink with my companions. For many years, I have been a big fan and advocate of the Wetherspoon's chain, championing their unique venues, economical menus, and wide range of interesting beers and ales. I have always felt comfortable and welcome visiting Wetherspoon's pubs, which is especially important to me as a young woman when I visit pubs alone. There are few establishments I feel at ease visiting by myself for a coffee or a meal, but I have never hesitated to enter a Wetherspoon's alone, knowing the atmosphere will always be welcoming and non-intimidating.

So, imagine my great distress and shock when I arrived at the [name redacted] pub at approximately 5pm to be met at the door by a large and imposing individual wearing a facial visor of the sort usually associated with riot gear worn by the police. This is a deeply intimidating reception and immediately quashed the sense of welcoming relaxation I had always associated with Wetherspoon's. This individual informed me and my companions that we must enter our details in the NHS "track and trace" scheme before being escorted to a table. 

I have carefully studied the guidance surrounding NHS "track and trace", and am fully aware that participation in this scheme is voluntary. This fact is reiterated on the Wetherspoon's website. However, the physically imposing individual in riot gear did not make this clear, and instead gave the distinct impression we would be declined entry to the premises were we not to participate in "track and trace". Therefore, we gave the impression of filling in a form, but wrote that we did not consent to this scheme, which we considered to be a gross invasion of our privacy and breach of data protection law, a fact which has been officially confirmed today: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-53466471 - but we should not have felt compelled to write anything at all

We were then further distressed to find upon our tables large A4 advertisements for the NHS "track and trace" scheme, which were affixed to the table and impossible to remove. This added to the overall oppressive, Orwellian atmosphere; that instead of entering a pub for a relaxed evening of socialising, we had instead entered some sort of militaristic government facility, patroled by staff in riot gear and surgical masks, demanding we give a detailed breakdown of our movements to the state. It was a deeply sinister and unnerving experience, and - having planned to spend the entire evening there - we had one drink and left. 

As veterans and pioneers of modern pub culture, I am sure I don't have to tell you that people go to the pub to relax, and not to be tracked by the government. I do not think it a deeply radical statement to declare that I don't trust the government, and consider it absolutely no business of theirs whatsoever where I go or what I do. Allegedly, they claim to want to monitor my movements to "protect my health". But it is not their job to protect my health; it is their job to protect my rights (very much including my privacy rights), and in reality, that is the only legitimate job they have.

It is my view - and I have had extensive correspondence with [my local MP] espousing this view - that the "lockdown" measures imposed by the government are wholly illegitimate in every way (especially considering this is all in the name of a virus which has never actually been proven to exist, please see here: https://www.kevinpcorbett.com/coronahysteria/viral-challenge-to-boris-johnson.html), and I most certainly include in these measures the NHS track and trace scheme, which has now been revealed as illegal, as it was always obvious it was. As someone who has gone through the very stringent GDPR training myself, I know very well that pubs are not GDPR compliant, and the method of attempting to collect data is an extraordinary breach of the law. Flimsy forms slipped into cardboard boxes, which anyone could read over your shoulder or run off with. There is no formal, contractual agreement between individuals and institutions regarding what this information is being used for or who is seeing it. It is a complete shambles, and as I wrote on the form at the time, a clear breach of the law. 

I would like to seek your assurance that you will ensure your pubs no longer wilfully flout the law on data protection, nor will you select physically imposing members of your team to attempt to intimidate people into complying with voluntary schemes. I also request you remove the affixed notices from your tables, and return the atmospheres in your venues to relaxed, welcoming, and generally pub-like. I say this not just for myself and everyone else who enjoys pub culture, but for you and your future livelihood - because I can assure you that if you continue to run your pubs like government monitoring facilities, your custom will evaporate and you will be complicit in the murder of your own industry.

Yours sincerely,

Miri Finch

Find this letter permanently at:  https://miriaf.webs.com/wetherspoondataprotection

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Letter to Local Restaurant Regarding "Track and Trace", 16/07/2020


Dear [name redacted],,

I came into your restaurant on Friday 10th July for a meal with my husband, but sadly, we had to leave without ordering anything as we did not want our details stored for the purposes of "track and trace", and we were informed we would not be served unless we volunteered our contact information.

In the first instance, I would like to explain clearly why we did not want our details taken. It is not because we were concerned the restaurant might misuse this information, which appeared to be how the manager interpreted our position - on the contrary; we have happily volunteered our details in the past to book a table, fully confident in the integrity of staff to doing nothing untoward with our personal information. The reason we did not want our details taken on this occasion is that we do not want to be tracked by the government. Tracking our movements is not something we have ever agreed the government has the right or legitimacy to do. It is none of their business where we go or what we do, and nor is it their business to purport to protect our health. It is their business to protect our rights, and in reality, that is the only business the government has. What they are doing currently, in terms of imposing "lockdown" measures, destroying small business, decimating the economy, and as a direct consequence, irreparably ruining innumerable lives, is nothing short of tyrannical and despotic, and we want no part of it.

The fact remains there is actually no proof a "deadly virus" exists at all (please see here:https://www.kevinpcorbett.com/coronahysteria/viral-challenge-to-boris-johnson.html/), but even if there was and it did, it is still grotesque government overreach to demand the dismantling of the economy and consequent unravelling of millions of lives in response. My husband and I, along with millions of others, ardently oppose all of the "lockdown" measures in their entirety, as disproportionate and illegitimate, and we will not lend any credence to the situation by submitting to "track and trace" schemes, which are nothing short of kangaroo courts - innocent people receiving phone calls from state operatives demanding they incarcerate themselves in their houses for a fortnight, on the basis of accusations from anonymous parties, and with no right to challenge or appeal. This is the kind of thing one would expect to encounter in a dictatorial banana republic, not an alleged first-world liberal democracy.

Now that I have detailed our objections to the scheme and why we will not give our business to any venue that attempts to force us to participate, I think it is very important to clarify the legal position and underline that businesses do NOT have to extract details from customers in order to serve them and remain within the law. Participation in track and trace is entirely voluntary, and venues are completely at liberty to welcome patrons who would rather not be involved in it. 

Because the legal position has intentionally not been made clear to small businesses, many are needlessly turning customers away, as you did, and those customers are then taking their business to large corporate outfits, such as Wetherspoon, instead; outfits whose legal teams have carefully studied the guidance and know exactly what is and is not legally required. Wetherspoon knows customers cannot be forced to give away personal details, as this is in breach of the GDPR, and so they do not force (or even ask) customers to give such details. There are simply forms made available in the pubs that people can fill out should they choose, but there is no insistence or pressure on customers to do so. I invite you to visit your local Wetherspoon and see for yourself, and it is the same in other corporate chains, such as Marston's.

My husband and I were most regretful to have to leave your restaurant, as we would much rather support small and independent businesses such as yours, than monoliths like Wetherspoon, but if we are offered the choice of participating in track and trace or going elsewhere, then we will always go elsewhere.

I hope the information I have given you in this letter gives you cause to reconsider your position because we very much hope to enjoy many meals in your wonderful establishment in the future.

Yours sincerely,

Miri Finch

Find this letter permanently at:  https://miriaf.webs.com/restaurant-track-and-trace

CORRESPONDENCE WITH LOCAL MP REGARDING CORONAVIRUS


25/03/2020


Dear Barry,


Many thanks for your thoughtful and considered reply. I am very pleased that you share my concerns about the extremity of [the coronavirus] bill, and are taking steps to contain it, including - and crucially - preventing abuses of the bill.

My family and I are all in good health, thank you, and, as no residents of my household are elderly or in otherwise at-risk groups, we are not overly concerned about the risk of the virus to ourselves. We are abiding by the new rules regarding social distancing, and taking sensible precautions, such as hand-washing and taking vitamin C. 

What we (my husband and I and other members of our extended family) are very concerned about is the extremely draconian nature of the current 'lockdown', which we believe is disproportionate, and not justified by the overall threat of the virus; a position supported by many experts - please see here: https://off-guardian.org/2020/03/24/12-experts-questioning-the-coronavirus-panic/. We are concerned that, what we perceive to be a huge overreach of governmental powers, will not only be abused now, but will also not abate once this virus has been contained. 

It would have been unimaginable as little as three months ago that a first-world, democratic nation could impose what is effectively house-arrest on its citizens, with no democratic mandate to do so. This, alongside the ferocious new powers granted to government under the coronavirus bill, could easily pave the way for this government to become despotic, and I do not use the word lightly.

There are two primary concerns I harbour. Firstly, that I will be pressurised into taking a coronavirus test, without my consent. I have investigated this thoroughly, and it is clear there is no reliable test for coronavirus infection, and that false positives are rife. If a test were to return positive, whether this result is accurate or not, then the implications concern me deeply. Will I be forced into hospital, government detainment, or treatment protocols against my will? I have done the research and am confident this virus is not a significant threat to me, and so I do not wish to be tested for it, nor treated in a a hospital or other government facility for it if I do contract it. I am obeying social distancing rules and so I would not be passing it onto anyone else. But the new government powers seem to be able to force me into testings and treatments against my will - and section me under the Mental Health Act if I refuse! Clearly, this is deeply troubling indeed. Please can I seek your assurance that you and the Labour Party will work to ensure neither I nor anyone else is coerced into receiving tests or treatments we do not want. 

My second concern at this time is that when the 'lockdown' concludes, there will be introduced certain mandates to continue to participate in society, one of which will be having received a coronavirus vaccine. I have harboured grave concerns about vaccine safety for many years, and wrote to Jeremy Corbyn MP on the matter when I was resident in London and he was my MP. Sadly, no progress has been made since that time in ensuring vaccine safety testing is more rigorous, and that is more pertinent than ever where it comes to the coronavirus vaccine, which is being 'fast-tracked'. Even outspoken vaccine advocates have issued grave warnings against fast-tracking such a vaccine, as this inevitably means safety standards (already inadequate in the vaccine industry) will be compromised.  Scientists have also warned that a coronavirus vaccine carries the possibility for a phenomenon known as vaccine enhancement, whereby the virus is made worse in a vaccinated person. Please see here for more details:


Please can you give me your assurance as my MP that you will continue to uphold your constituents' rights to informed consent and bodily autonomy, as per the Montgomery ruling (https://www.themdu.com/guidance-and-advice/guides/montgomery-and-informed-consent) and Nuremberg Code (https://history.nih.gov/research/downloads/nuremberg.pdf), and that you and the Labour Party will oppose any vaccine mandates that limit or restrict people's rights to participate in civil society.

Thank you again for reply, and for your support in this matter.

Best regards,

Miri


Letter to Barry Sheerman MP, 03/04/2020


Dear Barry,


Thank you once again for your very thoughtful reply. Please allow me to express how much I appreciate your taking the time to comprehensively engage with all of my raised points. This, in my experience, is unusual for an MP, and it is very much appreciated - now more than ever. 

I do, of course, entirely appreciate how busy you must be, and I do not wish to further compound unnecessarily your workload. However, there have been developments in the press since I wrote to you last that I would feel it remiss not to bring to your attention.

The health secretary, Matt Hancock MP, is proposing the public be issued with 'immunity passports', a certificate or possibly wristband declaring their coronavirus status, and that displaying such a certificate would be a necessary requirement to rejoin society.

I hope you will share my view that this would be an abhorrent, Orwellian overreach of governmental powers, and that it should not be incumbent on private persons to make public declarations about their health in order to continue to participate in society. Furthermore, it is clear that there is still no reliable test. Mr. Hancock has suggested an antibody test will be made available, but antibody tests are not infallible (far from it), and furthermore, the presence of antibodies is not synonymous with immunity to disease. It is also not clear that these tests actually detect the specific novel virus, Covid-19, rather than simply coronaviruses in general - which, being a major cause of the common cold, almost everyone has had. Finally, antibody tests cannot distinguish between current, acute infections and past, historical ones - all they can tell you is that you have at some point been exposed to the virus. 

It is for all of these reasons that I will not be submitting to any coronavirus testing, and I most certainly will not be displaying any public information about my health, regarding coronavirus or any other infection. 

My concern is that the Coronavirus Bill will make it a legal requirement for me to do so, and that I will continue to be held a prisoner in my own home (having committed no crime, and having had no due process, trial, or defence) unless I submit, have the test, and wear the band. 

I seek your assurance that you will strenuously oppose the idea of 'immunity passports' - for coronavirus or any other infection - and that health status will continue to be the private, personal matter it has always been and should always be.

With my best wishes in these difficult times,

Miri


Letter to Barry Sheerman MP, 30/05/2020


Dear Barry,


I hope you remain well in these tumultuous times. There have been many developments in the weeks since I wrote to you last, and, as the coronavirus crisis quickly escalates, a situation which is being used to systematically erase our rights and freedoms, I felt I must write to you again.

The concerns I raised in my last letter of 3rd April. 2020 – that it would become incumbent on me to make public declarations about my private health status in order to continue to participate in society - have only intensified, with the introduction of the NHS tracking app, and the new “contact tracing” programme.


These services do not hinge on the informed consent of participants, but rather, to quote a recent Forbes magazine article: “Contact-tracing is not an opt-in Bluetooth app that might register your proximity to an infected person, under a very limited set of circumstances, including that you’re both fully running the app. No, contact tracing is a manually-intensive, surveillance-heavy, privacy-intrusive process where a combination of brute-force measures and meticulous attention to detail, under the purview of well-trained operatives, roots out the spread of infection.” - https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakdoffman/2020/05/22/contact-tracing-apple-google-coronavirus-security-update-android-iphone/?fbclid=IwAR0xyht-0YqqJGMs77d8gUb10pCdDjHOPtPjotj74NzFsrt-P0nb4aX-C0k#431b6ac81d59


Having worked in telephone-based roles for a number of years myself (including at [name redacted] here in Huddersfield, a position I have lost as a result of the current situation), I know how tightly guarded people’s personal information is, and that an organisation may not utilise personal information that has not been expressly and consensually obtained. Furthermore, if a person is contacted by an organisation and requests clarification on where that organisation obtained their details, the organisation is legally obliged to tell them.


Therefore, I fail to see how the NHS “contact tracing” programme is operating within the confines of the law. Rather, it appears this programme has plunged every citizen in the UK into a kangaroo court, whereby they may, at any time, be ordered into house-arrest by a complete stranger on the end of a telephone, having committed no crime, with no right to appeal, and on the say-so of an unidentified person, who is not required to provide a single scrap of evidence that their claims of “contact” are true. As the “accusing party” remains unidentified, the person being contacted is rendered completely unable to confirm or deny the claims of contact. This is a farce, and blatantly wide open to misuse and abuse. In addition, the conditions which qualify for “close contact” seem to have been invented entirely out of whole cloth, and I have yet to see a single piece of credible evidence that being around a person with a positive COVID-19 test for 15+ minutes, as opposed to any other time frame, is uniquely dangerous. If it is, then why do we need to “socially distance” from people we pass for only a matter of seconds on the street? The other qualifications for “close contact” appear equally arbitrary and inconsistent.


This house-arrest – which Matt Hancock has clarified will only be voluntary if you comply, and if you don’t, will be mandatory – is for a cold virus which has an extremely high recovery rate, and is effectively no threat at all to people under 40 with no comorbidities, such as myself.  In addition, I have never signed any binding agreement with the government stating that my health is their responsibility, and nor has any other person in this country, so I do not recognise the authority our supposed democratic government has to impose this on its citizens at all. I reject the legitimacy of the “lockdown” in its entirety, as have many pre-eminent experts (whose testimonies I alerted you to in an earlier correspondence), and of course, the modelling by Imperial College upon which it was based has been rendered completely invalid.


If a person is concerned about their health, and feels self-isolation is the best measure to protect themselves, then they should be supported to do that. There was and is absolutely no justification at all for forcing it on the rest of us.  


It is my contention that the coronavirus is being ruthlessly exploited by the British government, and by governments around the world, to create authoritarian technocracies where such concepts as rights, freedoms, and privacies are abolished, and we exist in a state of perpetual tyranny, where the government can dismantle our lives and throw us into house-arrest any time it pleases. Once under house-arrest, a person is only entitled to SSP, which is £95 per week. This could quickly and easily decimate a family’s finances, especially if an individual is repeatedly identified as a “close contact” of a COVID-positive person, which is entirely within the realms of possibility. If we do not comply with house-arrest, the unprecedented powers granted to the government under the Coronavirus Act allows it to forcibly quarantine us in its own facilities, where it can non-consensually administer any “treatments” it feels are appropriate, or section us under the Mental Health Act for an “initial” period of six months.


This situation is a profound outrage, and an insult to the rights and autonomy of every person in this country, as well as to the memories of our ancestors, who risked - and often lost - their lives, to allow us to live in a free country.  They did not die so our governments could imprison us in our homes on the pretext of protecting us from a cold virus; they died to ensure our freedom.


I would like to register that I do not consent to any of these freedom-curtailing or privacy-invading measures, and, should an NHS contact tracer contact me, I will be taking their details and reporting them to the Data Commissioner, which is what I have been advised to do by a lawyer.

Please can you ensure the government is aware that large swathes of the British population do not recognise the legitimacy of the current measures and that we do not consent to them. Many of us are of the view that the government and its agents are acting illegally. You may be aware that the businessman Simon Dolan is in the process of taking the government to trial for illegally imposing "lockdown", whilst a campaign is currently underway to have the Coronavirus Act rendered null and void, as it is allegedly based on falsehoods. 


https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/the-coronavirus-act-2020/?fbclid=IwAR3F6-kUOqx9VapLd7qHh5tXEipYwn7R09US_yiw4rqdckqijBlqp0Nsa74


Please can I seek your assurance that you will do everything in your power as a representative of the British people to ensure this country remains a free one, and that we do not descend into an inescapable Orwellian dystopia.


Yours sincerely,


Miri


Find these letters permanently at:  https://miriaf.webs.com/sheermanmpcoronavirus