justified pursuit, do you think it is acting within international law? it has to act in accordance with international law. this is not an extra, it has to be in accordance with international law. and that is a point that we have repeatedly pressed on is real and other countries have pressed on israel. it has to act in accordance with the law. as to whether each and every actor is in accordance with law, that will have to be adjudicated in due course. i think it is unwise for politicians to stand on stages like this or to sit in television studios and pronounce it day by day which acts may or may not be in accordance with international law. i think it is not the role of politicians. i do not think it is wise to do it. i, the benefit of a lawyer of having litigated over issues like this in the past and in my experience it often takes or months to assimilate the evidence and to then work out whether there may or may not have been a breach of international law. the call for polit
thatis build up that social mixing. now, that is fine if you are intent on never having to do suppression measures again. but, from all of the evidence we have received from all of the advice that we have received, it was incredibly clear we were certainly going to have to do suppression measures again. we knew that all the way through. that was from the start. so, to then move forward and say, were going to get back into work when business wasn t even asking for people to come back into work, they were encouraging employees to stay at home, still. we developed all of these tools for remote working. but it was governments on its own demanding people go to work when the research we had were saying people were still quite cautious, businesses do not want to do it. the scientific opinion was that we would have to have another lockdown. to me it made absolutely no sense whatsoever why we were talking about getting everyone back to work and that were the stories that ended up bein