|
|
Post by dodgydave on Jun 4, 2023 0:40:31 GMT
No point getting excited about it. They will string the enquiry out long enough so that nobody in power at the time will still even be an MP.
The whole thing is pretty pointless, as it will be judging with hindsight, and next time another pandemic hits the same thing will happen... because you can make decisions in good faith, but with hindsight they prove to be wrong.
The only way it will be remotely useful if the enquiry uncovers any criminal behaviour. Not likely though, people have been running to the police / courts for the last 2 years and nothing is sticking.
Using Whatsapp is tricky, as there is a built in expectation of privacy, so tongue will be looser and standards lower. They are effectively the modern version of making a phone call. It does feel like the courts need to decide if these conversations should be public knowledge so politicians know how to use them in the future. What is next, we fit bodycams to politicians and record them 24/7?
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Jun 4, 2023 0:55:13 GMT
Recent developments do tend to hint that the cabinet office has something to hide. Apparently Jeremy Quinn, minister for the cabinet office, has informed Boris not to submit any information to the inquiry, he was warned that if he does then funding for legal bills which for some reason the public purse is picking up, will be stopped. It seems to me, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who thinks so, Boris is considering stabbing Sunak in the front.
|
|
|
|
Post by dodgydave on Jun 4, 2023 1:03:08 GMT
Recent developments do tend to hint that the cabinet office has something to hide. Apparently Jeremy Quinn, minister for the cabinet office, has informed Boris not to submit any information to the inquiry, he was warned that if he does then funding for legal bills which for some reason the public purse is picking up, will be stopped. It seems to me, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who thinks so, Boris is considering stabbing Sunak in the front. I am in two minds about this. If you think something is private then you act / speak differently, and then to go back and judge the contents as if they were for the public seems a little unfair. I think the courts need to make a ruling on this. Can you imagine if your personal conversations were opened up for public scrutiny? I am in a couple of work Whatsapp groups, and if they were sent to HR I doubt many of us would still have a job. We all live to the idea of "knowing your audience", so I'm not rushing into judgement of this one. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Jun 4, 2023 1:21:21 GMT
Recent developments do tend to hint that the cabinet office has something to hide. Apparently Jeremy Quinn, minister for the cabinet office, has informed Boris not to submit any information to the inquiry, he was warned that if he does then funding for legal bills which for some reason the public purse is picking up, will be stopped. It seems to me, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who thinks so, Boris is considering stabbing Sunak in the front. I am in two minds about this. If you think something is private then you act / speak differently, and then to go back and judge the contents as if they were for the public seems a little unfair. I think the courts need to make a ruling on this. Can you imagine if your personal conversations were opened up for public scrutiny? I am in a couple of work Whatsapp groups, and if they were sent to HR I doubt many of us would still have a job. We all live to the idea of "knowing your audience", so I'm not rushing into judgement of this one. I agree. Anyone regardless of who they are will obviously be less guarded in what they say in a 'private' conversation, and that's fair enough, as far as I'm concerned what's private should stay private. But what concerns me is the fact that very senior politicians conduct business via whatsapp. The Chinese and for that matter the CIA, must be laughing their heads off. MI5 need to get a grip of this. As for Boris, I tend to think he's enjoying it. I tend to think he's got information that the cabinet office (Sunak) don't want the inquiry to see. Could be wrong, no doubt time will tell. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jun 4, 2023 6:40:37 GMT
What the inquiry should find:
There should have been no lockdowns.
There should have been no track and trace.
The advice should have been to take great care if you were in poor health, diabetic or obese.
Infection will aid immunity.
Vaccines will reduce the impact of Covid but will not prevent transmission or infection. Likewise masking.
Schools should have stayed open and business should have carried on as normally as possible.
Travel should have remained open
What the inquiry will find:
The Tories are evil....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2023 8:14:57 GMT
What the inquiry should find:
There should have been no lockdowns. There should have been no track and trace. The advice should have been to take great care if you were in poor health, diabetic or obese. Infection will aid immunity. Vaccines will reduce the impact of Covid but will not prevent transmission or infection. Likewise masking. Schools should have stayed open and business should have carried on as normally as possible. Travel should have remained open What the inquiry will find:
The Tories are evil.... Not sure about the last bit, but the rest is common sense. The biggest mistake was following the science - it was a flawed version of alchemy from professor Ferguson who has never predicted anything correctly. And SAGE!! |
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Jun 4, 2023 8:41:55 GMT
Do we need a public enquiry to know that the government handled the Covid pandemic badly? No. My thinking is that the purpose of the enquiry is not so much about apportioning blame for errors made, but more of a "lessons learned" so that we can deal with future pandemics better. In that respect the enquiry could be valuable. Well, one of my friends who had an easily treatable cancer caught Covid in hospital and died. My father, just after a heart attack caught Covid in hospital and they were going to send him home, whilst infected. Luckily they didn't, and he survived. He's had a quadruple bypass operation now, and he's fitter than he has been in years, but he was lucky. Not many unvaccinated people caught one of the early strains of Covid whilst already ill with a heart condition, and survived. But lots of people caught Covid in hospital and died. I firmly believe that the pandemic was mismanaged and the responsibility goes to the top. |
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Jun 4, 2023 11:16:39 GMT
My thinking is that the purpose of the enquiry is not so much about apportioning blame for errors made, but more of a "lessons learned" so that we can deal with future pandemics better. In that respect the enquiry could be valuable. Well, one of my friends who had an easily treatable cancer caught Covid in hospital and died. My father, just after a heart attack caught Covid in hospital and they were going to send him home, whilst infected. Luckily they didn't, and he survived. He's had a quadruple bypass operation now, and he's fitter than he has been in years, but he was lucky. Not many unvaccinated people caught one of the early strains of Covid whilst already ill with a heart condition, and survived. But lots of people caught Covid in hospital and died. I firmly believe that the pandemic was mismanaged and the responsibility goes to the top. I'm sorry to hear that. Yes, where mistakes have been made we should absolutely be learning from that, and that was the point that I was making. If any criminal behaviour is unearthed, then this should be addressed, but personally think that we'll find that it was more that there were severe issues with infrastructure that hadn't been addressed, and that there was a lot of not knowing what to do. Would Labour have done any better? Probably not. |
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Jun 4, 2023 11:24:26 GMT
What the inquiry should find:
There should have been no lockdowns. There should have been no track and trace. The advice should have been to take great care if you were in poor health, diabetic or obese. Infection will aid immunity. Vaccines will reduce the impact of Covid but will not prevent transmission or infection. Likewise masking. Schools should have stayed open and business should have carried on as normally as possible. Travel should have remained open What the inquiry will find:
The Tories are evil.... Don't you need the evidence before coming to the conclusions for the enquiry, otherwise what is the point? As for the decision for lockdowns, it's a bit difficult to criticise the government for following the scientific advice, if they had no evidence to the contrary. If the scientific advice turned out to be wrong, then we should look at that as an issue, understand why, and then use that as a lesson learned for future pandemic planning. I'm no fan of the government, as you know, and I don’t think they handled this well (in fact I don't think they handle much of anything well), but the purpose of the enquiry has to be to learn, not for people to make up their minds without evidence. That's totally pointless and illogical. |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Jun 4, 2023 11:30:06 GMT
What the inquiry should find:
There should have been no lockdowns. There should have been no track and trace. The advice should have been to take great care if you were in poor health, diabetic or obese. Infection will aid immunity. Vaccines will reduce the impact of Covid but will not prevent transmission or infection. Likewise masking. Schools should have stayed open and business should have carried on as normally as possible. Travel should have remained open What the inquiry will find:
The Tories are evil.... Don't you need the evidence before coming to the conclusions for the enquiry, otherwise what is the point? As for the decision for lockdowns, it's a bit difficult to criticise the government for following the scientific advice, if they had no evidence to the contrary. If the scientific advice turned out to be wrong, then we should look at that as an issue, understand why, and then use that as a lesson learned for future pandemic planning. I'm no fan of the government, as you know, and I don’t think they handled this well (in fact I don't think they handle much of anything well), but the purpose of the enquiry has to be to learn, not for people to make up their minds without evidence. That's totally pointless and illogical. Still treading wind then Hash? |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jun 4, 2023 17:02:58 GMT
What the inquiry should find:
There should have been no lockdowns. There should have been no track and trace. The advice should have been to take great care if you were in poor health, diabetic or obese. Infection will aid immunity. Vaccines will reduce the impact of Covid but will not prevent transmission or infection. Likewise masking. Schools should have stayed open and business should have carried on as normally as possible. Travel should have remained open What the inquiry will find:
The Tories are evil.... Don't you need the evidence before coming to the conclusions for the enquiry, otherwise what is the point? As for the decision for lockdowns, it's a bit difficult to criticise the government for following the scientific advice, if they had no evidence to the contrary. If the scientific advice turned out to be wrong, then we should look at that as an issue, understand why, and then use that as a lesson learned for future pandemic planning. I'm no fan of the government, as you know, and I don’t think they handled this well (in fact I don't think they handle much of anything well), but the purpose of the enquiry has to be to learn, not for people to make up their minds without evidence. That's totally pointless and illogical. Lack of evidence did not stop McPherson from reaching a conclusion which seemed to have been oven baked and ready before the inquiry even got started |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jun 4, 2023 17:24:58 GMT
What the inquiry should find:
There should have been no lockdowns. There should have been no track and trace. The advice should have been to take great care if you were in poor health, diabetic or obese. Infection will aid immunity. Vaccines will reduce the impact of Covid but will not prevent transmission or infection. Likewise masking. Schools should have stayed open and business should have carried on as normally as possible. Travel should have remained open What the inquiry will find:
The Tories are evil.... Don't you need the evidence before coming to the conclusions for the enquiry, otherwise what is the point? As for the decision for lockdowns, it's a bit difficult to criticise the government for following the scientific advice, if they had no evidence to the contrary. If the scientific advice turned out to be wrong, then we should look at that as an issue, understand why, and then use that as a lesson learned for future pandemic planning. I'm no fan of the government, as you know, and I don’t think they handled this well (in fact I don't think they handle much of anything well), but the purpose of the enquiry has to be to learn, not for people to make up their minds without evidence. That's totally pointless and illogical. This is not a search for evidence - it is a search for someone to blame... We already know from other countries what worked and what didnt - spending a £100 million to tell us the same things in 2 years time (if you are lucky) is a pointless waste of money. |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Jun 4, 2023 17:31:35 GMT
What the inquiry should find:
There should have been no lockdowns. There should have been no track and trace. The advice should have been to take great care if you were in poor health, diabetic or obese. Infection will aid immunity. Vaccines will reduce the impact of Covid but will not prevent transmission or infection. Likewise masking. Schools should have stayed open and business should have carried on as normally as possible. Travel should have remained open What the inquiry will find:
The Tories are evil.... Which a fair few of them certainly are in their globalist intent. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Jun 4, 2023 17:55:18 GMT
Don't you need the evidence before coming to the conclusions for the enquiry, otherwise what is the point? Sadly every public enquiry follows the same, pointless, well worn path: Appoint a malleable retired judge or senior civil servant, tell them what conclusion is expected and send them off to find “evidence” for it or failing which, to simply assert it anyway (per McPherson). We've seen the same, time and again: “Lessons will be learned” (that never are), no individual is ever responsible (they never are) and/or the conclusion is so blindingly obvious that fat bloke down the pub could have told them the same for the price of a pint. Hillsborough, the Marchioness disaster, Grenfell Tower, blah, blah, blah... We've seen it all before. They rumble on for years and by the time the conclusions are published everyone's forgotten about it. So save the money, use it to compensate the victims, and move on. It's way better in the long run. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Jun 4, 2023 19:45:58 GMT
What the inquiry should find:
There should have been no lockdowns. There should have been no track and trace. The advice should have been to take great care if you were in poor health, diabetic or obese. Infection will aid immunity. Vaccines will reduce the impact of Covid but will not prevent transmission or infection. Likewise masking. Schools should have stayed open and business should have carried on as normally as possible. Travel should have remained open What the inquiry will find:
The Tories are evil.... Deaths and infection down to Covid. United Kingdom cases Updated 4 Jun at 10:05 local Confirmed
24,618,436 Who knows how many would have died without treatment and how many more without precautions. I guess callous crap heads just don't care. Deaths
226,278 As above ^^^ Hmm, so no problem with Covid, carry on as normal LOL |
|
