Contract Law


The Government have made claims (“Government Claims”) to close certain “non-essential’ businesses and venues.

A maxim of law is those who make the claim have the burden of proof; “he who avers must prove”.

It’s important to remember, if you choose to open your business and subsequently receive a charge notice (fine) from the authorities, you can appeal. Paying a charge notice without contesting it is an admission of guilt. If you appeal, the Government will have to substantiate the “Government Claims” in court.

Have you invested more time and money to make your premises “covid safe”?

Have you also carried out your own risk assessments adjusting practices to ensure they are “covid safe”?

If you decide to open your business you must be prepared rebut the charge notice in a court of law with a valid argument. Unless these cases are heard the measures are unchallenged.

The Government have done no legislative impact assessment on these measures. You should therefore do your own. The measures need to be proportionate to the alleged risk your business poses to public health. Without a thorough impact assessment, how does the government know that these measures, are not doing more harm than good.


“Government Claims”

 COVID-19 case numbers are rising rapidly across the country.

We must act now to control the spread of the virus. The single most important action we can all take to fight coronavirus is to stay at home, to protect the NHS and save lives. 

When we reduce our day-to-day contact with other people, we reduce the spread of the infection. That is why you must:

  • stay at home, except for where you have a reasonable excuse
  • avoid meeting people you do not live with, unless for a permitted reason
  • close certain businesses and venues


Some of the “Government Claims” driving policy have been broken down here:

 There is a completely new virus, Sars-CoV-2, or COVID-19 commonly referred to as Coronavirus, jumping from animals to humans, (meaning no one is immune) and it can therefore spread exponentially,

  1. The pathogen is so sinister it can even be passed on by people with no symptoms themselves, commonly referred to as asymptomatic carriers,
  2. Therefore, the only solution is to to diagnose the disease (whether symptomatic or not) by means of a PcR Test,
  3. Lockdowns protect the NHS and saves lives,
  4. If the government does not intervene there will be massive deaths and critical care, namely the NHS, will be overwhelmed.



Here is some of the evidence the Government will need to produce to justify the “Government Claims”. The Government is yet to produce peer reviewed scientific evidence supporting the declaration they are “following the science”:

 That the SARS-CoV-2 or COVID-19 virus exists, has been isolated, purified and introduced into a live human host and that the Government has in its’ possession actual examples of this virus,

  1. That the PCR test being used to identify cases of infection with SARS-CoV-2 or COVID-19 is capable of detecting infections of the same in humans,
  2. That there exists scientific peer-reviewed proof that the PCR testing procedure currently being used in the UK, can positively identify Covid19 or SARS-CoV-2 infections and does not mistake any other type of virus or coronavirus, I.E the common cold, or any of the many strains of influenza, as SARS-CoV-2 or COVID-19,
  3. That there exists scientific peer-reviewed evidence that the PCR test is reliable and does not give sufficiently high rates of ‘false positives’ rendering test results unreliable,
  4. There has been a thorough and complete legislative impact assessment for all SARS-CoV2 or COVID19 emergency legislation, acts and statutes,
  5. That asymptomatic cases are in fact infected and infectious,
  6. That the closure of your business and staying home will in fact protect the NHS and save lives,
  7. That there exists scientific peer-reviewed evidence that the ‘cases’ of infection being quoted by the government are in fact cases of sick people and not cases of healthy people with detectable immune system anti-bodies against SARS-CoV-2 who may have developed ‘natural immunity,
  8. That the high numbers of ‘cases’ of SARS-CoV-2 or COVID-19 currently being quoted by the Government are not evidence of ‘herd immunity’ spreading through the community and are in fact ‘cases’ of life threatening or severe infections justifying the closure of businesses,
  9. That there is compelling evidence that the current Government ‘guidelines’ are lawfully binding and are not simply optional guidelines requiring consent,
  10. That there exists a lawfully binding contract signed by *Your name in Upper and Lower case* wherein compliance with said guidelines is clearly stated,
  11. That SARS-CoV-2 or COVID-19 is a HCID – High Consequence Infectious Disease – when the Government itself states that SARS-CoV-2 or COVID-19 is no longer a HCID,
  12. That the term “public health threat” being used by the Government to close businesses can be clearly defined and shown with evidence, that SARS-CoV-2 or COVID-19 is dangerous, highly contagious and life threatening to people without existing severe health problems, and that the alleged threat it poses to the British people is real.
  13. That you will be breaking laws and not guidelines should *your business name* choose to open,





Peer review of Corman-Drosten PcR test protocols calls for retraction


An external peer review of the Corman-Drosten paper by an international consortium of life-science scientists has found the paper is severely flawed on 10 key elements. The paper has been used for the basis of PcR testing worldwide.  The peer review by Eurosurveillance has subsequently been questioned.

“Kurkela et al. [1] that PCR should only ever be used in tandem with a clinical diagnosis of infection based on symptoms”

 “Misdiagnoses of PCR positives as infections have a history of causing “Casedemics”

 “A decision to recognise the errors apparent in the CD paper has the benefit to greatly minimise human cost and suffering going forward.”

 Lockdowns don’t work – over 30 published papers against it

The evidence is rapidly mounting against lockdown measures, with over 30 published papers, finding that lockdowns had little to no efficacy in controlling the spread of the virus or reduce severity of the disease.


Post Lockdown SARS-CoV-2 study does not support asymptomatic transmission claim

A study of 10 million Wuhan residents found not one case of asymptomatic transmission. The claim that a healthy person can pass on the virus is extremely damaging to society. People see everyone as a potential super spreader, reacting with fear, aggression or disgust if someone gets too close.

The World Health Organization (The WHO) on Lockdowns

On 9th October 2020, Dr David Nabarro, The WHO’s special Envoy, urged world leaders to stop using lockdowns pointing out some of the negative impacts lockdowns are having across the world including devastating tourism industries, increased hunger and poverty across the world.

“We really do appeal to all world leaders; stop using lockdown as your primary control method”. Despite this guidance the UK Government have locked down the nation twice.

Published by THE WHO: Infection Fatality Rate is range of a normal flu season  

As proven in a meta-study by John Ioannidis, which was published online in The WHO bulletin in October 2020. This would suggest perhaps people have some prior immunity and deaths are in fact, currently in line with seasonal averages.

On protecting the NHS and Saving Lives

The consequences of PcR test false positives suggest lockdowns based on case numbers and the testing of healthy people are actually causing more harm than good and will put immense pressure on the NHS for years to come.

“The wide ranging and disastrous impacts of these non-evidence based measures are now becoming only too clear: Human impacts, to name just a few include; a) impacts on mental health including an increase in suicides [4]; b) cancelled or delayed essential hospital treatment (e.g. cancer, heart disease, diabetes etc), c) deaths among the elderly due to separation from loved ones, d) inhumane confinement and isolation of the elderly at a stage in their life when they need family contact most, increase in stillborn deaths.”

Lockdowns, the economy and small businesses

Numerous studies have been published worldwide against the devastating effects of lockdowns with the UK facing the worst recession since world war two.

It is estimated lockdown will cause up to 6.5 million job losses in the UK.

(Add evidence reference)

A list of sources of supporting evidence will be added to the website shortly.


The UK Government is a registered company and therefore, the enforcement of legislation, acts and statutes falls under contract law. The Government must have your consent to contract with you, and you have a right to impost your own conditions.

The conditional notice templates provided outline the process, however you can add, or remove, any of the conditions.

This notice states you will close your business (or open it) if the authorities do not provide evidence to support the Government Claims and the closure of your business.

There are two ways you can approach this.

  1. Open now. Issue the conditional notice of acceptance of closure to local authorities advising them you’re open and will only close provided they meet your conditions by providing evidence.
  2. Open Later. Issue a notice advising the authorities of your intent to open on a specific date, unless they meet your conditions, by providing evidence. The notices are a three-part process and can be completed within 20 days of their receipt of the first notice.

If the authorities do not meet your conditions then their claims are unsubstantiated and you have evidence to support you in court should you need to defend a charge notice.

A number of people have, to date, successfully used this process and haven’t, to our knowledge, received any evidence supporting government claims despite it being requested!

The full information of this process is detailed here.<hyperlink>  and the empowering business team is happy to talk you through and support you with this process.

A note on Legislation vs criminal law and the enforcement of acts and statutes?

    Your Cart
    Your cart is empty