EU e-Privacy Directive

This website uses cookies to manage authentication, navigation, and other functions. By using our website, you agree that we can place these types of cookies on your device.

You have declined cookies. This decision can be reversed.


We have previously reported on the Good Law Project's good work in investigating the manner in which "our" government placed PPE contracts.

Today we highlight their work in investigating the placement of Test and Trace contracts.

"This new evidence corroborates reports in November from unnamed insiders that there was a VIP channel for testing supplies. The total spend on Test and Trace is £37bn, dwarfing that for PPE"

Of course, if sub-optimal procurement procedures were used for one set of contracts it is reasonable to investigate whether they were also used for others.

It seems that they may have been.

Read the press release.





LaworFiction report on their case about the compulsory wearing of masks in English (and I assume Welsh) schools (Scotland has a different legal system and it's not clear how much this ruling affects Scotland, if at all).

"It is good news that it seems masks will no longer be encouraged in classrooms from 17 May"

"We know from the school's evidence in this case that it, like most others, relied on the government Guidance in respect of its risk assessment. But we also know, from government responses elsewhere, that the government admits to making no assessment of the harms from masks other than to survey of the views of 'stakeholders' such as teachers unions. So who is assessing the risks?"

"The Government has controlled schools and businesses through guidance, fear and largely empty threats that failing to follow the guidance would be a breach of the Health and Safety as Work Act 1974 and the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999. In truth, it is precisely by failing to assess harms of 'covid secure' policies in schools and premises that those same laws have been breached, failing us and our children"

There are still perhaps some pitfalls to this judgement since the judge appears to have taken a rather narrow view of the case before him.

There is clearly argument to be made that the government by not making any risk assessment has acted in an unsafe manner in providing advice that masks should be worn in order to enhance safety - so the government may be thought to be acting illogically, but whether that is a legal issue or not may need to be tested separately in court.

Read the case updates here.


Do you work for a health service, a university, a care home or hospice, national or local government, or are you a student, a parent or anyone else concerned about unwarranted coercion to give up a freedom?

Law or Fiction have launched a new "Ain't just whistling" service where you can register your concern with a view to ensuring your protection under whistle-blower legislation.

"... it takes courage to speak up. So we have thought carefully about what is needed to make sure you and we ain’t just whistling in the wind"

"Uniquely through laworfiction.com we are helping everyone to gain that courage through these three steps to take together.

  1. Finding others who want to speak up
  2. Getting a good understanding of legal rights
  3. Accessing expert legal advice and representation"

Read all about it here.


I seem to be finding more legal cases by the day, and this is another brought to us by the Good Law Project, who have well and truly got the bit between their teeth on holding "our" government to account for their cavalier disregard for their legal responsibilities.

This one is about their responsibility to keep Conservative Party political messaging out of the government's public messaging. Bearing in mind that the May elections are imminent, this is no minor point.

It also brings once more into focus something that we may find concerning - the World Economic Forum in partnership with the UN now seems to be running the world's governments, including the Biden administration in the USA and the Boris dictatorship in the UK, as demonstrated by the vacuous WEF slogan "Build Back Better" now also mysteriously endemic across many other "democratic" western governments.

Neither the WEF nor the UN is a democratic organisation, and the reinforcement of democracy is not a tenet of WEF publications (although "intervention" by governments and regulators certainly is).

Ask yourself - who gets to go to Davos?