genuine apology

I shouldn't have got snippy.

To contextualise:

I deal with this (kind of) stuff day in and day out and precision of language is important.

The *discussion of the issue* not the *judgement* says what you're quoting. The discussion of the issue turns over both side of the argument.

The relevant bit of the "conclusion" (the actual judgement as reported) says:

The Regulations in force on 2 July 2020 did involve a restriction on the freedom of assembly and association. That freedom is an important one in a democratic society. The context in which the restrictions were imposed, however, was of a global pandemic where a novel, highly infectious disease capable of causing death was spreading and was transmissible between humans. There was no known cure and no vaccine. There was a legal duty to review the restrictions periodically and to end the restrictions if they were no longer necessary to achieve the aim of reducing the spread and the incidence of coronavirus. The Regulations would end after six months in any event. In those, possible unique, circumstances, there is no realistic prospect that a court would find that regulations adopted to reduce the opportunity for transmission by limiting contact between individuals was disproportionate. Permission to apply for judicial review on that ground is refused.

So it was turned down.

The outcome of the case is saying the opposite of what you're saying it does.

The casual misrepresentation of legal terms, judgements and processes is problematic because it's embedding those misunderstandings for people who aren't dealing with them regularly.

Human rights are a balance - your freedoms in balance with other people's.

It's always arguable and under review, but just because you don't like where that balance has currently been struck does not mean your human rights have been infringed (the bit you've quoted says that it passes the first stage of infringing, but fails the second - which means it's not infringing - to then go on to argue that if circumstances were different then it would be an infringement is a tautological argument and essentially meaningless).

I'll (genuinely) duck out now, as I have no desire to offend.

Posted By: Cardiff Canary, Sep 9, 20:10:28