Boris Johnson and the Law of Responsibility

 The Law of Responsibility During a Pandemic.

We are witnessing during this current pandemic what many view as limitations on our rights and general freedom. This is true, but only half the truth, because with every right comes a concurrent duty, and here we see obligations and a sense of moral responsibility. By wearing a mask and sanitizing my hands, I am mostly protecting others who might catch the virus from me, and at the same time securing protection for myself. A mask signals to others that I am fulfilling my duty to others. There have been numerous instances where people have neglected their duties to others. Unfortunately there has been in the UK so much mixed-messaging from Day One that even the Prime Minister, his cabinet and the Pandemic experts in the SAGE group do NOT know the rules. Clarity was the first victim of this pandemic, and it has resulted in a hundred thousand deaths. What I would like to ask you the reader, is whether a Prime Minister and his government had a moral and legal responsibility to act in such a manner to minimize deaths? The answer should be yes. If a leader of a government can be held accountable for war crimes, surely he or she has some accountability in a time of a pandemic. It does seem because of arcane laws that a Prime Minister like a President has a lot of immunity, and leeway in making mistakes. Here a majority in the House of Commons allows the current Prime Minister protection from censure and scrutiny. Yet, here as I write the citizens of Brazil are seeking the impeachment of their President using the law on crimes of responsibility. I would using a book on the theory of responsibility and liability, argue that while in British law Boris Johnson is not liable for the mass deaths, he is definitely morally responsible and maybe criminally responsible. At the very least he should be forced to resign as should his cabinet and several of his pandemic experts. Let us look at what I consider his remit. He in November received Intel information about a start of a pandemic in China. At no stage was he alarmed. In December he chose to listen to the Chinese government and the WHO secretary instead of reviewing the ITEL information, also he KNEW that the CCP was unreliable – there was after all the SARS1 pandemic cover-up. He had facts also about the unreliability of the WHO secretary who had prior history of covering up pandemics. The Prime Minister chose deliberately to ignore the scientific evidence. Here he acted irresponsibly. He put economic interests before lives. He was also very busy with Brexit. If he had followed the CDC protocol as set out in hundreds of documents, he would have immediately placed a ban on flights from China. He did not. He sat on his hands until March. His advisors had in place a model for a rhinovirus pandemic, and as shown by researchers, the UK was woefully underprepared. If he had acted in November or December as a reasonable Prime Minister should, he would have bought value time to educate the UK citizens on what to do. Here as a responsible Prime Minister he should have sought to find the best model for handling the pandemic. This was Taiwan because that country had learnt invaluable lessons from the first SARS1 pandemic. The UK PM did not get the population to mask up, quibbling over whether people should wear masks. Did not have a strong lock-down from day one. Indeed every day the Prime Minster has been arguing with himself! Whenever he says that the country should do X he recognizes and shares sympathies with those who want Y. This mixed-messaging and flip-flopping has been directly responsible for many deaths. An outstanding example of this irresponsibility was his decision to go out and shake hands and wear no mask, against medical advice. For much less members of government and the health establishment have been forced to resign. Incredibly, when the country needs to have an effective government that communicates clearly, he is continuing with mixed-messaging, undermining every measure to prevent deaths. Here I would say that the Prime Minister and his cabinet as well as SAGE have acted morally irresponsibly and the major question in my mind is whether they should be held responsible for criminal acts. One might say that they acted negligently as the kindest. Could the above be foreseen? Yes. Time over time the Prime Minister had the facts at his finger tips. As did the SAGE group. They had wanted to go for herd immunity and set a target of maximum deaths equivalent to the number of old and vulnerable who die needlessly from seasonal influenza because the NHS and care homes did not have the basic hygiene protocols to help protect their patients and clients. That in itself should be a case for a mass lawsuit! In the British law courts and in Parliament the Prime Minister and the cabinet enjoy immunity from litigation. However, in the wider court of science and public morality, they have acted irresponsibly and caused mass manslaughter. How else do you explain the low deaths in Taiwan of under 10? You might argue that it is because of the number of aged. Well Taiwan has a large aged population. The next would be the obesity issue. Here while it is true, if the UK had closed its borders in December, those prone to complications (and here the research has reams and reams of evidence) would be given additional support. Indeed every aspect of pandemic handling and mitigation could have been done early on. The Prime Minister like a Nero was more interested in securing a Brexit deal. He should resign immediately.