Viking Supporters Co-operative
Viking Chat => Off Topic => Topic started by: BillyStubbsTears on June 01, 2023, 01:39:35 am
-
Fascinating goings on in the heart of Govt.
The head of the inquiry, Lady Hallett, demanded that the Cabinet Office submit Johnson's WA messages to her.
The CO firstly refused, saying they were personal and irrelevant. (Note. We know Cummings ran Govt by WA, so they were unlikely to be irrelevant. And these were WA messages on a Govt phone, so what the f**k was Johnson doing sending personal messages on it?)
The CO then said they didn't have those messages.
Hallett responded by saying that she wanted a statement, signed by a senior official, explaining why they didn't have the messages from a Govt phone, and if they didn't, why they knew there were personal messages on the WA account. And reminded them that a lie would be perjury.
Johnson, tonight, has announced that the CO has all his WA messages.
Watch this space...
-
The man’s like Teflon.
-
It's about the perma-war that Johnson is waging on Sunak.
Anyone who thought Johnson was going to walk away into the sunset after the excruciating embarrassment of how he lost the PM post knows nothing about him. There's only one constant in his life and that's his gargantuan ego. He sees what happened last year as a betrayal and he will carry out his vendetta.
In this specific case, he's gunning full on for Sunak. He knows that if the standard is set that unredacted notes from a PM can be demanded by the Inquiry, Sunak will have no option but to submit his own. And then we will all get to see his manoeuvring to bring Heneghan and Gupta into Government meetings in September 2020, and the subsequent anti-lockdown policy - Sunak's policy - that led to 60,000 avoidable deaths over the subsequent 7-8 months, and an eventual lockdown that was far longer, harder and more costly than it needed to be.
Johnson has Sunak right in his sights. If he destroys the Tory party for a generation through this fight, he couldn't care less.
-
Sunak's integrity.
How it started:
https://youtu.be/_0q12MQXk5s?t=128
How it's going:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65782535
-
On 3rd February Baroness Hallett wrote to Johnson with a list of 150 questions about the government’s handling of the pandemic she wanted answers to. They included:
To what extent did you believe that coronavirus was akin to influenza? Did you hold and express the initial view in early 2020 that Covid-19 was not a serious threat and was akin to swine flu?
Why did you not attend any COBR meetings in relation to Covid-19 prior to 2 March 2020, given the seriousness of the emergency?
Were you advised or requested to attend any of the previous meetings on 24 January, 29 January, 4 February, 12 February, and 18 February?
Why did you attend a personal/social meeting on the evening of 19 March, after you had called on the UK on 16 March to stop all non-essential contact with others?
Please confirm whether in March 2020 (or around that period), you suggested to senior civil servants and advisors that you be injected with Covid-19 on television to demonstrate to the public that it did not pose a threat?
In or around Autumn 2020, did you state that you would rather “let the bodies pile high” than order another lockdown, or words to that effect? If so, please set out the circumstances in which you made these comments.
Please explain what impact, if any, you consider alleged breaches of social restriction and lockdown rules by Ministers, officials and advisers... had on public confidence and the maintenance of observance of those rules by the public?
https://twitter.com/georgegrylls/status/1664327234826432515
I wonder what is in Johnson's diaries/messages that Sunak doesn't want to come out btw? What was he doing that we don't know about?
This inquiry is certainly not going to be a whitewash some feared it might be.
-
This inquiry should not and must not be a witch hunt to try to trip up people who were acting professionally and in good faith at the time. Honest, diligent people can still make mistakes.
But equally, it's not acceptable to turn a blind eye to everything. Lessons must be learned about where policy was right and where it was wrong. And if politicians made egregious mistakes that could and should have been avoided, we have a right to know.
-
Interestingly, Cummings, who usually pours out Tweets faster than a goose excretes, has been silent on Twitter for 6 weeks now.
I wonder if he's lawyering-up before getting called in front of Hallett?
-
Interestingly, Cummings, who usually pours out Tweets faster than a goose excretes, has been silent on Twitter for 6 weeks now.
I wonder if he's lawyering-up before getting called in front of Hallett?
Too busy re-editing his blog!
-
I love this line from the BBC.
"It is thought to be the first time a government has taken legal action against an inquiry it has set up."
Count the days down till they are out out of their misery.
-
This Thread is a BST and Wilts Rover love in! I’m so happy for both of you!
-
The Inquiries Act allows the independent inquiry chair to determine an inquiry’s process & procedure. Baroness Hallett has considerable experience and expertise in leading complex investigations."
Rishi Sunak, 27 April 2023.
34 days is a long time in politics
https://twitter.com/StewartWood/status/1664387988841717770
-
This Thread is a BST and Wilts Rover love in! I’m so happy for both of you!
Good of you to come and join us in giving your opinion on the governent inquiry into how it handled a major pandemic and what lessons can be learnt so it is more effective in dealing with the next one.
Oh...
-
This Thread is a BST and Wilts Rover love in! I’m so happy for both of you!
Good of you to come and join us in giving your opinion on the governent inquiry into how it handled a major pandemic and what lessons can be learnt so it is more effective in dealing with the next one.
Oh...
I can only assume the only reason hound hasn't liked his post is because it would cause an irony overload. :lol:
-
Nothing to do with BST & Wilts using the enquiry as a political football, like. :facepalm:
-
Some people really ought to poke ther heads outside of criticising other posters in this forum and take a sniff at what the rest of the world is thinking about this matter. But unfortunately to those people it's never about the subject at hand, it's always all about criticising other posters at every opportunity. :facepalm:
-
Mr Wiggerly: 'I'm gonna give you my opinion of your post.'
BB: 'Oh, yes please.'
Mr Wiggerly: 'It's a load of shite.'
BB: 'I know, but I still like to hear it.'
-
To think this thread will still be going in a couple of years as the pointless "hindsight" enquiry continues and our regular "fifth columnists" will still be focusing on dissipating their masculine stored energies on this thread - meanwhile life in the real world continues :)
-
Nothing to do with BST & Wilts using the enquiry as a political football, like. :facepalm:
Ah the trollmeister himself appears, totally avoiding the subject topic and flinging personal attacks as usual.
At least sproty is funny.
-
Some people really ought to poke ther heads outside of criticising other posters in this forum and take a sniff at what the rest of the world is thinking about this matter. But unfortunately to those people it's never about the subject at hand, it's always all about criticising other posters at every opportunity. :facepalm:
And this post followed:
I can only assume the only reason hound hasn't liked his post is because it would cause an irony overload. :lol:
-
I still don't think there is a clear outcome to what should have been done, clearly there needed to be a lockdown, was it done quick enough probably not, was it done for 2 long probably as it's caused a lot of deaths since, the tories wanted shorter lockdown labour wanted longer
-
Some people really ought to poke ther heads outside of criticising other posters in this forum and take a sniff at what the rest of the world is thinking about this matter. But unfortunately to those people it's never about the subject at hand, it's always all about criticising other posters at every opportunity. :facepalm:
And this post followed:
I can only assume the only reason hound hasn't liked his post is because it would cause an irony overload. :lol:
But I didn't come into this thread to criticise any posters, but to read about the topic.
Renind, me, what was the post I was referring to adding to the subject at hand?
-
I still don't think there is a clear outcome to what should have been done, clearly there needed to be a lockdown, was it done quick enough probably not, was it done for 2 long probably as it's caused a lot of deaths since, the tories wanted shorter lockdown labour wanted longer
A clearer outcome will be when we find out what the expert advisors were telling the government and what any reasons for ignoring them were.
-
Nothing to do with BST & Wilts using the enquiry as a political football, like. :facepalm:
Ah the trollmeister himself appears, totally avoiding the subject topic and flinging personal attacks as usual.
At least sproty is funny.
I wasn't trying to be funny, I was just being plain honest.
-
I still don't think there is a clear outcome to what should have been done, clearly there needed to be a lockdown, was it done quick enough probably not, was it done for 2 long probably as it's caused a lot of deaths since, the tories wanted shorter lockdown labour wanted longer
A clearer outcome will be when we find out what the expert advisors were telling the government and what any reasons for ignoring them were.
What difference will the result of the enquiry make to those who are using it as a political football? If the government isn't found guilty of anything untoward in its handling of the pandemic they will call it a whitewash anyway, so what's the point?
-
So BB the point is to learn nothing that can be used if there is a future pandemic.
-
So BB the point is to learn nothing that can be used if there is a future pandemic.
Points should always be learnt with the advantage of hindsight, but the use of hindsight to gain political smarty points is appalling.
-
So BB the point is to learn nothing that can be used if there is a future pandemic.
Points should always be learnt with the advantage of hindsight, but the use of hindsight to gain political smarty points is appalling.
Go on then. Who is doing that in this thread?
-
I still don't think there is a clear outcome to what should have been done, clearly there needed to be a lockdown, was it done quick enough probably not, was it done for 2 long probably as it's caused a lot of deaths since, the tories wanted shorter lockdown labour wanted longer
A clearer outcome will be when we find out what the expert advisors were telling the government and what any reasons for ignoring them were.
What difference will the result of the enquiry make to those who are using it as a political football? If the government isn't found guilty of anything untoward in its handling of the pandemic they will call it a whitewash anyway, so what's the point?
The same difference as to those who call everybody who disagrees with them as using it as a political football.
-
Some people really ought to poke ther heads outside of criticising other posters in this forum and take a sniff at what the rest of the world is thinking about this matter. But unfortunately to those people it's never about the subject at hand, it's always all about criticising other posters at every opportunity. :facepalm:
And this post followed:
I can only assume the only reason hound hasn't liked his post is because it would cause an irony overload. :lol:
But I didn't come into this thread to criticise any posters, but to read about the topic.
Renind, me, what was the post I was referring to adding to the subject at hand?
The ONLY comment you made on this post was to have a sideswipe at Hound, who hadn’t entered the debate in any way.
Then you write some hypocritical b*llocks about your despair of posters criticising other posters.
Jesus.
-
So BB the point is to learn nothing that can be used if there is a future pandemic.
Points should always be learnt with the advantage of hindsight, but the use of hindsight to gain political smarty points is appalling.
Go on then. Who is doing that in this thread?
Give over, who are you actually trying to kid other than your handful of followers? You started this thread as a political football to kick the Tories, just as you have been doing for donkey's years.
-
So BB you don’t think government decisions should be questioned because it’s political, so the Iraq war is not worth questioning either. I look forward to a change of government and your comments.
-
If that is what you think it is not only scandalous, it is libelous.
-
I still don't think there is a clear outcome to what should have been done, clearly there needed to be a lockdown, was it done quick enough probably not, was it done for 2 long probably as it's caused a lot of deaths since, the tories wanted shorter lockdown labour wanted longer
A clearer outcome will be when we find out what the expert advisors were telling the government and what any reasons for ignoring them were.
there were so many expert advisors advising different things, so you will have to cherry pick which ones you think were right
-
So BB the point is to learn nothing that can be used if there is a future pandemic.
Points should always be learnt with the advantage of hindsight, but the use of hindsight to gain political smarty points is appalling.
Go on then. Who is doing that in this thread?
Give over, who are you actually trying to kid other than your handful of followers? You started this thread as a political football to kick the Tories, just as you have been doing for donkey's years.
BB
You're doing that thing that you do ever single time.
Ignoring the content and assuming that, because you don't want what they are saying to be true, they must be acting in bad faith.
Why not engage with the content? Why do you always, always have to do this?
-
And here's me thinking that it is you who ignores the content that doesn't suit your agenda, and only engages in the content that does!
Why don't you engage in all content?
-
I still don't think there is a clear outcome to what should have been done, clearly there needed to be a lockdown, was it done quick enough probably not, was it done for 2 long probably as it's caused a lot of deaths since, the tories wanted shorter lockdown labour wanted longer
A clearer outcome will be when we find out what the expert advisors were telling the government and what any reasons for ignoring them were.
there were so many expert advisors advising different things, so you will have to cherry pick which ones you think were right
And that's one of the areas where you learn lessons for the next time a big disaster hits.
How can politicians know which "expert" judgement to trust.
In this case, there were "experts" saying in March and May 2020 that COVID was over and done with.
Of course it wasn't. It killed about 150,000 people in Britain after those dates, and would have killed many, many more if we hadn't had the lockdowns
One of the key lines of questions that the inquiry will be asking is:
1) Why were those "experts" who were so horribly wrong about the situation at the start of the epidemic, invited to Whitehall in September 2020 to persuade Johnson not to impose a lockdown?
2)Who arranged for them to be paraded in front of Johnson?
3) How many avoidable deaths and how many billions of pounds of lost economic output were the result of those decisions? (Because they led directly to the second wave getting totally out of control by Xmas 2020, and to the inevitable lockdown, when it did come, having to be much harder and longer.)
If we are going to learn anything, we have to know, broadly, which "experts" got things right, and which ones were egotistical gobshites who got pretty much every call wrong. And we have to know why it was that, in late 2020, our leaders chose to listen to the latter group.
It's not good enough to shrug and say "There were different opinions." There always are. The art of leadership is filtering out the wrong opinions.
-
And here's me thinking that it is you who ignores the content that doesn't suit your agenda, and only engages in the content that does!
Why don't you engage in all content?
I've only got so much time. There are some things that don't interest me. There are some topics where I have nothing to add. Lots of reasons.
What I don't, ever do is to ignore content and throw abuse at people who are trying to discuss in good faith.
Why do you do that so regularly?
-
I still don't think there is a clear outcome to what should have been done, clearly there needed to be a lockdown, was it done quick enough probably not, was it done for 2 long probably as it's caused a lot of deaths since, the tories wanted shorter lockdown labour wanted longer
A clearer outcome will be when we find out what the expert advisors were telling the government and what any reasons for ignoring them were.
there were so many expert advisors advising different things, so you will have to cherry pick which ones you think were right
And that's one of the areas where you learn lessons for the next time a big disaster hits.
How can politicians know which "expert" judgement to trust.
In this case, there were "experts" saying in March and May 2020 that COVID was over and done with.
Of course it wasn't. It killed about 150,000 people in Britain after those dates, and would have killed many, many more if we hadn't had the lockdowns
One of the key lines of questions that the inquiry will be asking is:
1) Why were those "experts" who were so horribly wrong about the situation at the start of the epidemic, invited to Whitehall in September 2020 to persuade Johnson not to impose a lockdown?
2)Who arranged for them to be paraded in front of Johnson?
3) How many avoidable deaths and how many billions of pounds of lost economic output were the result of those decisions? (Because they led directly to the second wave getting totally out of control by Xmas 2020, and to the inevitable lockdown, when it did come, having to be much harder and longer.)
If we are going to learn anything, we have to know, broadly, which "experts" got things right, and which ones were egotistical gobshites who got pretty much every call wrong. And we have to know why it was that, in late 2020, our leaders chose to listen to the latter group.
It's not good enough to shrug and say "There were different opinions." There always are. The art of leadership is filtering out the wrong opinions.
I agree. There were experts telling labour we needed to lockdown for longer which would have caused many more avoidable deaths but you don't seem to have mentioned that
-
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/10/29/disastrous-legacy-left-lockdown-non-covid-excess-deaths-overtake/
-
And here's me thinking that it is you who ignores the content that doesn't suit your agenda, and only engages in the content that does!
Why don't you engage in all content?
I've only got so much time. There are some things that don't interest me. There are some topics where I have nothing to add. Lots of reasons.
What I don't, ever do is to ignore content and throw abuse at people who are trying to discuss in good faith.
Why do you do that so regularly?
If 'good faith' means everything the Tories did in the pandemic was wrong, and everything Labour did was right, then my opinion about the handling of it is irrelevant in the great scheme of things on this forum. What is relevant though is my point that you and your handful of mates treated the pandemic as a political football and used your one-sided bias for your political agenda of hate.
I don't know and I've never pretended to know the answers as to which route the government should have taken regarding Covid, and the only political remarks I made were in an attempt to level up the ridiculous one-sided attacks from you and your mates.
I just hope those involved in the inquiry are not politically biased, like you, so as to ignore the content that doesn't suit their agenda.
-
If only the government could have taken notice of the expert opinions of some of our forum members who appear to know what should have been done.
With hindsight of course.
-
No one cares anymore. Yesterday’s news. We’ve all moved on. No amount of complaining is going to change anything.
-
No one cares anymore. Yesterday’s news. We’ve all moved on. No amount of complaining is going to change anything.
I’m sure relatives of the deceased care
-
No one cares anymore. Yesterday’s news. We’ve all moved on. No amount of complaining is going to change anything.
I’m sure relatives of the deceased care
Of which I’m one. Bickering about what’s been and done it just isn’t productive is it? It was years ago now. Like the Iraq inquiry nothing will come of it.
-
No one cares anymore. Yesterday’s news. We’ve all moved on. No amount of complaining is going to change anything.
It's about learning lessons.
Only someone determined to stay ignorant would not care about that.
And it's about holding leaders to account. Having them justify their decisions. It's core to how democracies operate. How can you make decisions on the competence and trustworthiness of political decisio makers if you don't inquiry into how they formulated decisions during the most important events.
-
Well for what it's worth and purely on a personal level I was grateful to be taken out of the workforce for 6 months and placed on furlough and receiving 80% of my wages .
Taking me out of the workforce reduced my chances of getting the virus greatly and becoming extremely ill or pass it on to someone else who could have become even more ill or worse .
Not everyone was given that safety net .
-
And here's me thinking that it is you who ignores the content that doesn't suit your agenda, and only engages in the content that does!
Why don't you engage in all content?
I've only got so much time. There are some things that don't interest me. There are some topics where I have nothing to add. Lots of reasons.
What I don't, ever do is to ignore content and throw abuse at people who are trying to discuss in good faith.
Why do you do that so regularly?
If 'good faith' means everything the Tories did in the pandemic was wrong, and everything Labour did was right, then my opinion about the handling of it is irrelevant in the great scheme of things on this forum. What is relevant though is my point that you and your handful of mates treated the pandemic as a political football and used your one-sided bias for your political agenda of hate.
I don't know and I've never pretended to know the answers as to which route the government should have taken regarding Covid, and the only political remarks I made were in an attempt to level up the ridiculous one-sided attacks from you and your mates.
I just hope those involved in the inquiry are not politically biased, like you, so as to ignore the content that doesn't suit their agenda.
I know this is pissing more time and effort up against the wall, but I'll say it anyway.
Back during the pandemic when you were disgustingly accusing me of the same thing, I pointed out the numerous times that I had praised Govt action.
Do you remember what your ridiculous response was?
You said I'd done that as cover so that I could refer back to it later and thereby hide my real intent which was to use the pandemic to score political points.
I've never quite understood whether you are a WUM, or just so screwed up that you genuinely believe that utter b*llocks. Either way, you're really not worth bothering with.
-
No one cares anymore. Yesterday’s news. We’ve all moved on. No amount of complaining is going to change anything.
It's about learning lessons.
Only someone determined to stay ignorant would not care about that.
And it's about holding leaders to account. Having them justify their decisions. It's core to how democracies operate. How can you make decisions on the competence and trustworthiness of political decisio makers if you don't inquiry into how they formulated decisions during the most important events.
Fair enough. Sorry for my snappy post it was just a bad few years and I’m trying to move on from it. Prior to the loss (which I don’t blame anyone for), lockdowns hit me hard financially. It’s not for me to speak for everyone else though Filo you’re right.
If this post is about learning lessons and not pointing the finger and political point scoring then that’s fine.
The problem is it was a very complex issue that in the early days the WHO buried their heads in the sand about and believed China who were intent on covering it and the origins of the virus up. For example saying it could not be transmitted human to human.
Because it was such a complex issue not everybody will agree on what those lessons to be learnt are. There were trade-offs to be had with any response to it.
-
NC.
No problem. I don't think any of us particularly enjoyed it. And yes, I am 100% against any inquiry being a witch hunt that retrospectively hammers politicians for getting things wrong when under the gravest pressure.
But equally, it's not good for society to give politicians a free pass and absolve them of any responsibility for their actions.
For me, there are three major questions:
1) Why were we so late in locking down the first time? I have some sympathy for the politicians in that case, because the situation was developing very quickly. But that was a big mistake, and we need to know how and why that delay happened.
2) Far, far bigger question. With the knowledge that we had from the first lockdown, why were we so late in locking down in Winter 20/21? What advice was the Govt following? We do know that decision cost maybe 60,000 lives and led to a far, far longer lockdown than would otherwise have been required, with all the detrimental effects that had. And none of that is hindsight. It was talked about in real time in here and all over the country.
3) The major success of the epidemic was the vaccination programme. What lessons can we learn from that to expedite the process even more so in future pandemics? Are there research areas that we should prioritise? Are there stocks of raw materials that we should build up? Etc.
-
And here's me thinking that it is you who ignores the content that doesn't suit your agenda, and only engages in the content that does!
Why don't you engage in all content?
I've only got so much time. There are some things that don't interest me. There are some topics where I have nothing to add. Lots of reasons.
What I don't, ever do is to ignore content and throw abuse at people who are trying to discuss in good faith.
Why do you do that so regularly?
If 'good faith' means everything the Tories did in the pandemic was wrong, and everything Labour did was right, then my opinion about the handling of it is irrelevant in the great scheme of things on this forum. What is relevant though is my point that you and your handful of mates treated the pandemic as a political football and used your one-sided bias for your political agenda of hate.
I don't know and I've never pretended to know the answers as to which route the government should have taken regarding Covid, and the only political remarks I made were in an attempt to level up the ridiculous one-sided attacks from you and your mates.
I just hope those involved in the inquiry are not politically biased, like you, so as to ignore the content that doesn't suit their agenda.
I know this is pissing more time and effort up against the wall, but I'll say it anyway.
Back during the pandemic when you were disgustingly accusing me of the same thing, I pointed out the numerous times that I had praised Govt action.
Do you remember what your ridiculous response was?
You said I'd done that as cover so that I could refer back to it later and thereby hide my real intent which was to use the pandemic to score political points.
I've never quite understood whether you are a WUM, or just so screwed up that you genuinely believe that utter b*llocks. Either way, you're really not worth bothering with.
And you're STILL doing it to this day.
-
Billy.
Many people think the government did the best they could do under such unprecedented circumstances.
Many people don’t.
An enquiry is necessary, of course it is, for lessons to be learned. With absolutely no doubt, some mistakes (with the benefit of hindsight, of course) were made, and hopefully the enquiry will identify these.
But. Most of your posts on this thread aren’t really about the enquiry, are they? That’s not really the point of this thread, is it? That, as usual, is so transparent.
Here’s a thought: let the enquiry take its course and accept its outcome with some integrity.
Then, you never know, people might start to accept that there is more to you than a tory bashing obsessive who doesn’t write much on here with good faith.
-
Billy.
Many people think the government did the best they could do under such unprecedented circumstances.
Many people don’t.
An enquiry is necessary, of course it is, for lessons to be learned. With absolutely no doubt, some mistakes (with the benefit of hindsight, of course) were made, and hopefully the enquiry will identify these.
But. Most of your posts on this thread aren’t really about the enquiry, are they? That’s not really the point of this thread, is it? That, as usual, is so transparent.
Here’s a thought: let the enquiry take its course and accept its outcome with some integrity.
Then, you never know, people might start to accept that there is more to you than a tory bashing obsessive who doesn’t write much on here with good faith.
I would have thought that most people who cared about the Inquiry and the results of it so that lessons could be learnt, would care about what offical government communications were being released to it. And which were being witheld. Which is what this thread is about.
Unless the chair of the Inquiry knows exactly what the government were doing & discussing, and why, then how can a full picture be shown?
You will find a number of of posts in the covid thread saying how there should be a full inquiry into what the government did and why they did it. Funny how some of those same people appear to not now want one. Funny old world.
-
Wilts.
More to the point, you might expect them to be concerned about the established fact that the Cabinet Office lied to the head of the inquiry about what information they had, and only backed down when she smoked out their lie.
You might think they'd be more interested in that than chucking out ad hominems. But of course that is the triumph of hope over experience.
-
Wilts.
More to the point, you might expect them to be concerned about the established fact that the Cabinet Office lied to the head of the inquiry about what information they had, and only backed down when she smoked out their lie.
You might think they'd be more interested in that than chucking out and hominems. But of course that is the triumph of hope over experience.
Assuming your and hominem (sic) post was, at least partially, aimed at me, I do want the enquiry to be thorough.
I will also respect its findings.
It appears to me that you are paving the way to dismiss the findings if they are not what you want to hear.
-
Billy.
Many people think the government did the best they could do under such unprecedented circumstances.
Many people don’t.
An enquiry is necessary, of course it is, for lessons to be learned. With absolutely no doubt, some mistakes (with the benefit of hindsight, of course) were made, and hopefully the enquiry will identify these.
But. Most of your posts on this thread aren’t really about the enquiry, are they? That’s not really the point of this thread, is it? That, as usual, is so transparent.
Here’s a thought: let the enquiry take its course and accept its outcome with some integrity.
Then, you never know, people might start to accept that there is more to you than a tory bashing obsessive who doesn’t write much on here with good faith.
I would have thought that most people who cared about the Inquiry and the results of it so that lessons could be learnt, would care about what offical government communications were being released to it. And which were being witheld. Which is what this thread is about.
Unless the chair of the Inquiry knows exactly what the government were doing & discussing, and why, then how can a full picture be shown?
You will find a number of of posts in the covid thread saying how there should be a full inquiry into what the government did and why they did it. Funny how some of those same people appear to not now want one. Funny old world.
Who doesn’t want an enquiry?
-
So BB the point is to learn nothing that can be used if there is a future pandemic.
Points should always be learnt with the advantage of hindsight, but the use of hindsight to gain political smarty points is appalling.
Go on then. Who is doing that in this thread?
Give over, who are you actually trying to kid other than your handful of followers? You started this thread as a political football to kick the Tories, just as you have been doing for donkey's years.
Billy if you started this thread to kick the Torries I just hope you had steel toe capped boots on and kicked them hard
-
On holiday at the mo, has the Cabinet Office now "found" the Wa's and diaries?
There seems to be a news blackout ontinterweb about this
-
On holiday at the mo, has the Cabinet Office now "found" the Wa's and diaries?
There seems to be a news blackout ontinterweb about this
It's not a blackout, but some media are stretching the Phillip Schofield non-story to breaking point so they can fill pages with that instead of this story!
-
I see Johnson has not handed over his 1st phone for whats apps as required. It was used at the start of Covid, what on earth could he be hiding there!?. It's with his lawyers apparently, is he now in contempt of the court ruling? 2 years jail sentence could apply
Is the phone actually required, to access whatsapps messages?
-
How many politicians are capable of making real world management decisions? Part of the reason is because they are only held accountable by votes. That's not enough. If they are made to pay for screw ups, especially when there's even a sniff of fraud, they will start to be more effective and honest rather than the spectrum of self serving piffle and blather we see.
The inquiry should be firmly focused on the fraud around covid - the PPE, testing, even the vaccs. And those found guilty should be banged up.
-
Well surprise surprise, they have now found a record of the PIN required for Johnsons 1st phone. Things might get interesting now, there may be 1 or 2 in and out of government starting to get a little anxious
-
They probably aren't worried as the fire should wipe the phone out
Oops did I say fire