Foreign holidays will be ILLEGAL from Monday: New Covid laws mean £5,000 fines for anyone leaving the UK without ‘reasonable excuse’ – and restrictions could last for some holiday hot-spots all summer
- A ban on leaving the UK without reasonable excuse is in new coronavirus laws coming into force on Monday
- Travellers face £5,000 fine for going abroad on holiday until the end of June, threatening summer breaks
- Reasonable excuses include needing to travel for work or study, or to visit a dying relative or close friend
- Travel ban doesn’t apply to those going to the common travel area of Channel Islands, Isle of Man and Ireland
Travellers face a £5,000 fine for going abroad on holiday when a ban on leaving the UK without ‘reasonable excuse’ comes into force on Monday.
The threat of fines has been extended until the end of June, making foreign summer holidays look increasingly unlikely as a third wave of coronavirus sweeps across Europe.
And France is likely to be added to a ‘red list’ of countries requiring hotel quarantine by the end of the week.
Health officials are increasingly concerned by a surge in cases of the South African Covid variant across the Channel.
A senior minister even suggested the whole of the Continent could be put on the red list because of the botched vaccine rollout.
Quarantine-free holidays may not be possible until August, killing off hopes of trips abroad until late summer.
A ‘traffic light’ system is under consideration, allowing travel to ‘green’ countries without the need for quarantine on return.
Government sources stressed however that no decision has yet been made.
Transport Secretary Grant Shapps is leading a taskforce that will report by April 12 on how and when the ban on non-essential travel can be lifted. It can be no sooner than May 17 under Mr Johnson’s official roadmap.
That might mean the need to quarantine after foreign trips would stay in place until at least August.
Sir Graham Brady, chairman of the 1922 Committee of Tory MPs, said extending travel restrictions will be ‘devastating’ for millions of people working in tourism.
The revelation comes amid warnings from Boris Johnson about a third wave of coronavirus currently sweeping across Europe – which could ‘wash up on our shores’.
The travel ban does not apply to those going to the common travel area of the Channel Islands, Isle of Man and the Republic of Ireland unless that is not the final destination.
Exemptions also apply including for those needing to travel for work, study, for legal obligations or to vote, if they are moving, selling or renting property, for some childcare reasons or to be present at a birth, to visit a dying relative or close friend, to attend a funeral, for those getting married or to attend the wedding of a close relative, for medical appointments or to escape a risk of harm.
The threat to travel came as:
- Boris Johnson will mark the anniversary of the first national lockdown today with a minute’s silence. Exactly one year after the UK first went into national lockdown, a study found that the virus robbed British families of a total of 1.5 million years with their loved ones by cutting lives short;
- The UK’s daily recorded deaths from Covid-19 fell to 17 – the lowest number since September 28 and down 75 per cent in a week;
- The PM warned that a third wave of Covid cases seen in countries like France and Italy could ‘wash up on our shores as well’;
- EU leaders were last night split over whether to press ahead with an extraordinary ban on vaccine exports to Britain;
- A large US trial found the AstraZeneca vaccine is safe and effective, providing 100 per cent protection against severe illness from Covid.
Legally forcing scores of workers to get a jab raises huge legal and moral questions. Ministers have previously called similar ideas “discriminatory”.
The Cabinet sub-committee paper warns that a “large” number of social care workers may quit if the change is made, and that successful lawsuits on human rights grounds could be possible. It makes clear that a similar legal requirement is being considered for some frontline healthcare workers, such as those on wards, but no decision on that has been taken.
The document, drafted by the Department of Health and Social Care, is about 15 pages long and entitled “Vaccination as a condition of deployment in adult social care and health settings”.
Its key line is understood to read: “The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State [Mr Hancock] have discussed on several occasions the progress that is being made to vaccinate social care workers against Covid-19 and have agreed – in order to reach a position of much greater safety for care recipients – to put in place legislation to require vaccinations among the workforce.”
The sentence makes it clear that both have decided in principle to change the law to require the vaccination of social care workers, even as the specifics are worked up. Government officials are discussing what the legislation would look like, with consultation on a final detailed proposal expected.
The legal change would be likely to affect England only, with health policy the remit of the devolved administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Care homes have been among the sectors hit hardest by the Covid pandemic. In the last year, around one in 14 of the population of UK care homes has died after contracting the virus.
The paper, described to The Telegraph in detail by numerous sources, outlines the scale of the problem of Covid vaccine take-up among care home workers which has led ministers to act.
It says the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage) set a benchmark of 80 per cent vaccination among staff and 90 per among residents for a care home to be deemed safe. Fewer than a quarter of homes in London currently meet that benchmark, according to the document – the lowest of any region in England. Even in better performing areas, such as the South-West, it is only around half.
Care homes have a relatively high proportion of black, Asian and minority ethnic workers. Vaccine take-up has been lower in BAME communities, according to government data.
Many care home workers are young, meaning they may not yet have had a Covid vaccine, and the paper says other possible factors include concerns over having the jab while pregnant and online misinformation about the vaccine.
A senior government source justified the move by saying: “Protecting the most vulnerable in our society from a deadly virus is obviously of critical importance.”
However, the legal and ethical questions posed are likely to be strongly debated in the coming months.
A key line in the paper is understood to read: “The most significant risk of a policy to require vaccination among the workforce is the potential impact on workforce numbers should social care workers choose to leave their roles in large numbers rather than be vaccinated.”
There are also legal risks. The document weighs up the respective merits of making the legal change via primary legislation or secondary legislation, which is quicker to pass. It is understood to warn that there would be a “high risk” of successful legal challenges on human rights and proportionality grounds if the change was made by secondary legislation.
Nadhim Zahawi, the vaccines minister, has previously said Covid vaccine “passports”, revealing people’s jab status, would be “discriminatory”. In the same BBC interview, given last month, Mr Zahawi said of the idea of mandating people to get Covid jabs: “That’s not how we do things. We do them by consent.”
A Cabinet Office spokesman said: “The review into Covid status certification is considering a range of issues. No final decisions have been made.”
David Sheppard, a senior associate in Capital Law’s employment and immigration team, which advises employers on Covid vaccination policies at work, said no similar law had been passed in more than a century.
Mr Sheppard said the closest equivalent was the 1853 Vaccination Act, which introduced compulsory vaccination for smallpox for newborn babies, and Acts passed in 1861, 1867 and 1871 to enforce that rule with fines.
Covid Variant Jabs To Be Fast-Tracked With NO SAFETY TRIALS
The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) confirmed today that coronavirus variant vaccines will be fast-tracked and not subjected to safety trials. The regulator said that proof of effectiveness and safety will be transferable from the earlier studies on the original approved jabs.
It’s the process that allows flu vaccines to be updated each year so that they can adapt to the different strains that circulate each season. Big Pharma is working round the clock to produce vaccines to tackle the South African and Brazilian variants. It has been alleged that the existing jabs are less effective against the mutant variants.
Christian Schneider, chief scientific officer at the MHRA said;
“Our priority is to get effective vaccines to the public in as short a time as possible, without compromising on safety.
Should any modifications to authorised Covid-19 vaccines be necessary, this regulatory approach should help to do just that.
The government’s medical and scientific advisers have offered no proof that the existing vaccines may be less effective against the variants. The media as usual, is absent.
The Daily Mail today acknowledged that trials of the vaccines that 20 million Britons have received to date, are still ongoing. The experimental mRNA gene therapy vaccines, that are being pumped into thousands of arms as I write this, were rushed to market in six months. Trials won’t conclude until 2023.
Nobody can credibly claim that the vaccines are safe. It ordinarily takes a decade to get a vaccine approved. There is a very good reason for this. Trial volunteers need to be observed for years after they’ve had it. Neither the covid vaccine makers or the MHRA has a clue as to what the jabs might do to people in 12 months, 2 years or 10 years from now.
And they’ll be rolling them out for many years to come, untrialled and at the speed of light. This year it’ll be South African and Brazilian variant jabs. Next year it’ll be the Vietnamese and the County Kerry variant.
Scientists like Professor Dolores Cahill, Sucharit Bhakdi and Dr. Sherri Tenpenny believe that these drugs are incredibly dangerous and will kill millions over time. Please listen to them. Find their interviews online. I’ve had them on The Richie Allen Show, but they’ve made compelling fact based presentations which can be viewed on Bitchute and brandnewtube.com
UK Police Forces Preparing For “Summer Of Disorder”
Every police force in England and Wales has been ordered to gather intelligence on groups that may be planning protests in the coming weeks, according to The Times. The order, which comes from The Home Office, was prompted by the riot in Bristol on Sunday evening.
The government confirmed yesterday, that the temporary ban on protests, which was brought in to stop the spread of coronavirus, will be lifted on Monday. As a result of this, The Home Office is expecting a surge in protests around the country.
Police believe that more protests are planned for Bristol and London. Tensions are high in Brighton too. Speaking to The BBC, Clifford Stott, who chairs a sub-group of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage) which advises the government on security threats said:
“The next few weeks will be the most challenging of the pandemic. The warmer weather, the duration of the lockdown, increasing dissatisfaction among sections of the community about the imposing of control measures will all feed into situations where public assembly is going to be more likely.”
Following the events in Bristol, The Home Office told all police forces in England and Wales to gather information on planned protests in their area.
The government wants to impose severe restrictions on protests and hand unprecedented powers to police forces to enable them to shut them down.
The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, if it passes, would allow the police,
- Impose a start and finish time
- Set noise limits
- Apply these rules to a demonstration by just one person
It will also be a crime (if the bill passes), to fail to follow restrictions the protesters “ought” to have known about, even if they haven’t received a direct order from an officer.
Mercifully, the Labour Party has indicated that it will vote against the bill. Tory backbenchers have said they’ll rebel and vote against it too.