|
Post by wannabee on Dec 11, 2023 11:47:37 GMT
I really don't see the issue with the 'Eat out to help out' scheme. Sunak's remit at the time was economic matters and it was a reasonable attempt to help out the hospitality sector which was in financial ruin by that stage. I don't understand why there isn't just a honest/candid discussion that there was a balance to be struck between keeping the country functioning and controlling the virus spread. If the decision was based purely on health concerns then we'd have locked down for 2 years and we'd do the same every winter to minimise deaths from winter ailments. You make a valid point but neither the Chief Medical Officer not the Chief Scientific Officer were consulted by Sunak as to its likely outcome Therefore the decision was not a balanced one If Sunak had consulted the CMO and CSO and proceeded with the scheme then his decision to proceed could be considered subjective not reckless
|
|
|
Post by adri2008 on Dec 11, 2023 11:56:39 GMT
I really don't see the issue with the 'Eat out to help out' scheme. Sunak's remit at the time was economic matters and it was a reasonable attempt to help out the hospitality sector which was in financial ruin by that stage. I don't understand why there isn't just a honest/candid discussion that there was a balance to be struck between keeping the country functioning and controlling the virus spread. If the decision was based purely on health concerns then we'd have locked down for 2 years and we'd do the same every winter to minimise deaths from winter ailments. You make a valid point but neither the Chief Medical Officer not the Chief Scientific Officer were consulted by Sunak as to its likely outcome Therefore the decision was not a balanced one If Sunak had consulted the CMO and CSO and proceeded with the scheme then his decision to proceed could be considered subjective not reckless Wasn't this a decision for BoJo to make though? i.e. weighing up the pros and cons of it. I guess the decision making is at the root of the enquiry really, if the buck doesn't stop with the PM then where does it. The government operated more like a dictatorship during the pandemic after all.
|
|
|
Post by phileetin on Dec 11, 2023 12:06:13 GMT
You make a valid point but neither the Chief Medical Officer not the Chief Scientific Officer were consulted by Sunak as to its likely outcome Therefore the decision was not a balanced one If Sunak had consulted the CMO and CSO and proceeded with the scheme then his decision to proceed could be considered subjective not reckless Wasn't this a decision for BoJo to make though? i.e. weighing up the pros and cons of it. I guess the decision making is at the root of the enquiry really, if the buck doesn't stop with the PM then where does it. The government operated more like a dictatorship during the pandemic after all.
it had to , to some extent.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Dec 11, 2023 12:11:58 GMT
You make a valid point but neither the Chief Medical Officer not the Chief Scientific Officer were consulted by Sunak as to its likely outcome Therefore the decision was not a balanced one If Sunak had consulted the CMO and CSO and proceeded with the scheme then his decision to proceed could be considered subjective not reckless Wasn't this a decision for BoJo to make though? i.e. weighing up the pros and cons of it. I guess the decision making is at the root of the enquiry really, if the buck doesn't stop with the PM then where does it. The government operated more like a dictatorship during the pandemic after all. The policy was a Sunak initiative Bozo confirmed to the inquiry that he was "surprised" to find out later that Sunak had not consulted the CMO and CSO If a Senior Executive like the Chancellor of the Exchequer can't be competent enough to properly research their own initiative Yes the PM is ultimately responsible but it reflects poorly on Sunak's decision making process
|
|
|
Post by fullmetaljacket on Dec 11, 2023 12:22:12 GMT
20th March I have no recollection of that date. Is that even a date..
19th March - Ah yes I remember this impeccably Boris was in a pink shirt with black I hate school day socks, I told him you better be careful old Dave will get ideas.
So many elected officials suffer from memory loss should be a disclaimer in any future job ads.
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Dec 11, 2023 12:31:21 GMT
Wasn't this a decision for BoJo to make though? i.e. weighing up the pros and cons of it. I guess the decision making is at the root of the enquiry really, if the buck doesn't stop with the PM then where does it. The government operated more like a dictatorship during the pandemic after all. The policy was a Sunak initiative Bozo confirmed to the inquiry that he was "surprised" to find out later that Sunak had not consulted the CMO and CSO If a Senior Executive like the Chancellor of the Exchequer can't be competent enough to properly research their own initiative Yes the PM is ultimately responsible but it reflects poorly on Sunak's decision making process Yes, quite. I could understand the rationale of the decision at the time. It's easy to forget that the hospitality industry was absolutely on its arse and haemorrhaging jobs and revenue. But to do so without any kind of discussion with the chief medical officer was dangerous.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2023 12:34:45 GMT
The policy was a Sunak initiative Bozo confirmed to the inquiry that he was "surprised" to find out later that Sunak had not consulted the CMO and CSO If a Senior Executive like the Chancellor of the Exchequer can't be competent enough to properly research their own initiative Yes the PM is ultimately responsible but it reflects poorly on Sunak's decision making process Yes, quite. I could understand the rationale of the decision at the time. It's easy to forget that the hospitality industry was absolutely on its arse and haemorrhaging jobs and revenue. But to do so without any kind of discussion with the chief medical officer was dangerous. What do you think the CMO would have done? He’d have said something like, more virus = more deaths. That was already well understood.
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Dec 11, 2023 12:38:08 GMT
Yes, quite. I could understand the rationale of the decision at the time. It's easy to forget that the hospitality industry was absolutely on its arse and haemorrhaging jobs and revenue. But to do so without any kind of discussion with the chief medical officer was dangerous. What do you think the CMO would have done? He’d have said something like, more virus = more deaths. That was already well understood. Yes. So I suppose Sunak didn't want to hear what he didn't want to hear, and decided on that basis.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2023 12:46:13 GMT
What do you think the CMO would have done? He’d have said something like, more virus = more deaths. That was already well understood. Yes. So I suppose Sunak didn't want to hear what he didn't want to hear, and decided on that basis. I suppose that’s one way to look at it. Even with schemes like this, the British economy has essentially flatlined. I personally don’t envy anyone for the decisions that were made during this period. Tory’s might be out for themselves but I doubt that they reveled in making a call like this one.
|
|
|
Post by starkiller on Dec 11, 2023 12:51:22 GMT
The whole point of this fake inquiry is to promote the idea of even more Draconian lockdowns in the future, and to use the idea of government incompetence to promote the idea of handing all such health decisions to an external organisation. Health Technocracy, courtesy of you know WHO. Still no questions about why no country in the world had lockdowns as part of any pandemic response, yet virtually all these supposedly unconnected independent governments inflicted them on their populations, based on no evidence whatsoever. Answers to how this blunt, and scientifically flawed concept, was deemed necessary is probably found in those 'lost' messages. 😂 Maybe answer this question before you think you have grounds to mock. 'Still no answers about why no country in the world had lockdowns as part of any pandemic response, yet virtually all these supposedly unconnected independent governments inflicted them on their populations, based on no evidence whatsoever?' Not only used at the start, but again and again, even when it was clear that 'covid' had almost 100% recovery and lockdowns did nothing positive. So why? 🤣
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2023 13:00:58 GMT
Maybe answer this question before you think you have grounds to mock. 'Still no questions about why no country in the world had lockdowns as part of any pandemic response, yet virtually all these supposedly unconnected independent governments inflicted them on their populations, based on no evidence whatsoever?' No only used at the start, but again and again, even when it was clear that 'covid' had almost 100% recovery and lockdowns did nothing positive. So why? 🤣 I don’t agree with multiple lockdowns. The UK did it because the govt underinvested in a healthcare service that kept getting overrun. That’s your govt’s fault. Locking down areas has been done countless times throughout history, even before the WHO. It’s not a novel intervention measure.
|
|
|
Post by starkiller on Dec 11, 2023 13:06:19 GMT
Maybe answer this question before you think you have grounds to mock. 'Still no questions about why no country in the world had lockdowns as part of any pandemic response, yet virtually all these supposedly unconnected independent governments inflicted them on their populations, based on no evidence whatsoever?' No only used at the start, but again and again, even when it was clear that 'covid' had almost 100% recovery and lockdowns did nothing positive. So why? 🤣 I don’t agree with multiple lockdowns. The UK did it because the govt underinvested in a healthcare service that kept getting overrun. That’s your govt’s fault. Locking down areas has been done countless times throughout history, even before the WHO. It’s not a novel intervention measure. For a start, they are not my government, I've never voted for them. Locking down nations of healthy people for a respiratory virus is unprecedented. You don't lock people up and ban movement for a respiratory infection. It wasn't even a slight risk for almost the entire population. This action was not in any country's pandemic approaches, so why did it appear out of nowhere to be implemented everywhere? This is not a question to be mocked, it is a perfectly reasonable question. And we were told hospitals were overrun, when there's now plenty to reveal that they were largely empty, and life saving treatment cancelled for no reason.
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Dec 11, 2023 13:14:31 GMT
I don’t agree with multiple lockdowns. The UK did it because the govt underinvested in a healthcare service that kept getting overrun. That’s your govt’s fault. Locking down areas has been done countless times throughout history, even before the WHO. It’s not a novel intervention measure. For a start, they are not my government, I've never voted for them. Locking down nations of healthy people for a respiratory virus is unprecedented. You don't lock people up and ban movement for a respiratory infection. It wasn't even a slight risk for almost the entire population. This action was not in any country's pandemic approaches, so why did it appear out of nowhere to be implemented everywhere? This is not a question to be mocked, it is a perfectly reasonable question. And we were told hospitals were overrun, when there's now plenty to reveal that they were largely empty, and life saving treatment cancelled for no reason. Didn't they become dance studios given the proliferation of TikTok poncing that was being done?
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Dec 11, 2023 13:15:34 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2023 13:19:06 GMT
I don’t agree with multiple lockdowns. The UK did it because the govt underinvested in a healthcare service that kept getting overrun. That’s your govt’s fault. Locking down areas has been done countless times throughout history, even before the WHO. It’s not a novel intervention measure. For a start, they are not my government, I've never voted for them. Locking down nations of healthy people for a respiratory virus is unprecedented. You don't lock people up and ban movement for a respiratory infection. It wasn't even a slight risk for almost the entire population. This action was not in any country's pandemic approaches, so why did it appear out of nowhere to be implemented everywhere? This is not a question to be mocked, it is a perfectly reasonable question. Do you live in the UK? If not, then you are correct. If you do, then they are your govt. www.institutmontaigne.org/en/expressions/past-virus-containing-pandemics-throughout-history It’s not unprecedented and has happened so many times before. We can go back and forth on this all day. We’ve done it several times before.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Dec 11, 2023 13:22:06 GMT
Maybe answer this question before you think you have grounds to mock. 'Still no answers about why no country in the world had lockdowns as part of any pandemic response, yet virtually all these supposedly unconnected independent governments inflicted them on their populations, based on no evidence whatsoever?' Not only used at the start, but again and again, even when it was clear that 'covid' had almost 100% recovery and lockdowns did nothing positive. So why? 🤣 1 Too many countries didn't actually have a pandemic response plan in place despite the WHO encouraging them to do so for years. Those that did have a plan (like South Korea) reacted quickly with a highly effective track and trace system and as a result got on top of the problem before having to resort to lockdowns. 2 "Lockdown" is just another word for quarantine and has been used for centuries to tackle infectious diseases. All these countries didn't spontaneously come up with this new idea for tackling a pandemic because it isn't a new idea. And no it wasn't imposed by some trans global evil cabal because the trans global evil cabal doesn't exist. 3 As a result of international travel and the fact that people no longer live in relatively isolated communities the potential for a new disease to cause havoc is way higher than it ever was and on the whole the world isn't geared up to deal with it. The key lesson of the UK's covid enquiry so far is that government wasn't prepared for a pandemic and its decision making and implementation processes were utterly dysfunctional. I've answered your question now you answer mine. If covid was a made up disease designed to enable the trans global evil cabal to impose mass social control in the form of lockdowns why aren't we still locked down? What went wrong?
|
|
|
Post by starkiller on Dec 11, 2023 13:33:23 GMT
Maybe answer this question before you think you have grounds to mock. 'Still no answers about why no country in the world had lockdowns as part of any pandemic response, yet virtually all these supposedly unconnected independent governments inflicted them on their populations, based on no evidence whatsoever?' Not only used at the start, but again and again, even when it was clear that 'covid' had almost 100% recovery and lockdowns did nothing positive. So why? 🤣 1 Too many countries didn't actually have a pandemic response plan in place despite the WHO encouraging them to do so for years. Those that did have a plan (like South Korea) reacted quickly with a highly effective track and trace system and as a result got on top of the problem before having to resort to lockdowns. 2 "Lockdown" is just another word for quarantine and has been used for centuries to tackle infectious diseases. All these countries didn't spontaneously come up with this new idea for tackling a pandemic because it isn't a new idea. And no it wasn't imposed by some trans global evil cabal because the trans global evil cabal doesn't exist. 3 As a result of international travel and the fact that people no longer live in relatively isolated communities the potential for a new disease to cause havoc is way higher than it ever was and on the whole the world isn't geared up to deal with it. The key lesson of the UK's covid enquiry so far is that government wasn't prepared for a pandemic and its decision making and implementation processes were utterly dysfunctional. I've answered your question now you answer mine. If covid was a made up disease designed to enable the trans global evil cabal to impose mass social control in the form of lockdowns why aren't we still locked down? What went wrong? Well it's pretty obvious to them that it can only be spun out so long. But, they'll be back again with another premise to take further totalitarian steps, such as Blair's world digital ID. These lockdowns were copied from the Chinese Communist Party, based on no evidence, and a regime we were continually told not be trusted. And, really, if an argument could be made in real pandemic scenario, the only thing that needed locking down were inbound flights. That's it. Done. Then everyone can go freely about their business. It wasn't a pandemic - except by their own rewritten definition on their website, rewritten for legal reasons. Even the official data makes that clear. Calling it such doesn't make it so.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Dec 11, 2023 13:45:48 GMT
Yes. So I suppose Sunak didn't want to hear what he didn't want to hear, and decided on that basis. I suppose that’s one way to look at it. Even with schemes like this, the British economy has essentially flatlined.
I personally don’t envy anyone for the decisions that were made during this period. Tory’s might be out for themselves but I doubt that they reveled in making a call like this one. The UK Economy was hardly buoyant prior to Pandemic averaging 1.9% Growth in the previous 8 years to 2019 The UK Economy has flatlined since July 2021 six months after leaving the Single Market The parlous state of UK Economy is not due to Pandemic
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2023 15:15:35 GMT
I suppose that’s one way to look at it. Even with schemes like this, the British economy has essentially flatlined.
I personally don’t envy anyone for the decisions that were made during this period. Tory’s might be out for themselves but I doubt that they reveled in making a call like this one. The UK Economy was hardly buoyant prior to Pandemic averaging 1.9% Growth in the previous 8 years to 2019 The UK Economy has flatlined since July 2021 six months after leaving the Single Market The parlous state of UK Economy is not due to Pandemic It certainly wasn’t helped by it. Britain locked down multiple times between 2020 and 2021, that’s not going to be a positive contributor to the economy.
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Dec 11, 2023 15:36:02 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Dec 11, 2023 15:48:32 GMT
1 Too many countries didn't actually have a pandemic response plan in place despite the WHO encouraging them to do so for years. Those that did have a plan (like South Korea) reacted quickly with a highly effective track and trace system and as a result got on top of the problem before having to resort to lockdowns. 2 "Lockdown" is just another word for quarantine and has been used for centuries to tackle infectious diseases. All these countries didn't spontaneously come up with this new idea for tackling a pandemic because it isn't a new idea. And no it wasn't imposed by some trans global evil cabal because the trans global evil cabal doesn't exist. 3 As a result of international travel and the fact that people no longer live in relatively isolated communities the potential for a new disease to cause havoc is way higher than it ever was and on the whole the world isn't geared up to deal with it. The key lesson of the UK's covid enquiry so far is that government wasn't prepared for a pandemic and its decision making and implementation processes were utterly dysfunctional. I've answered your question now you answer mine. If covid was a made up disease designed to enable the trans global evil cabal to impose mass social control in the form of lockdowns why aren't we still locked down? What went wrong? Well it's pretty obvious to them that it can only be spun out so long. But, they'll be back again with another premise to take further totalitarian steps, such as Blair's world digital ID. These lockdowns were copied from the Chinese Communist Party, based on no evidence, and a regime we were continually told not be trusted. And, really, if an argument could be made in real pandemic scenario, the only thing that needed locking down were inbound flights. That's it. Done. Then everyone can go freely about their business. It wasn't a pandemic - except by their own rewritten definition on their website, rewritten for legal reasons. Even the official data makes that clear. Calling it such doesn't make it so. I dread this thread turning into the rabbit-hole that is the Covid one, but just one question which is really the same as the one CBU asked: Any global elite that is capable of creating a 'shamdemic' in the first place and persuading all governments of various political persuasions, and all their various health advisers etc, to take part is surely more than capable of perpetuating such a thing? In which case, why wasn't it "never-ending" as you've claimed so often. Why bother stopping then coming up with another ruse in a few years' time? You can't have an all powerful fake virus global cabal which suddenly fails to be an all powerful fake virus global cabal when it suits your argument. That's just having your cake and eating it. Either they are, and could easily be controlling governments, the media and our lives to the extent that you think they are, or they're not.
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Dec 11, 2023 15:51:58 GMT
There's a lovely piece in today's Telegraph which amounts to little more than the case for the defence for Conservative peer Baroness Mone and her husband One can only imagine the different tack that the paper would take if, say, the same thing had happened under a different government or some benefits fraudster was involved...
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Dec 11, 2023 16:50:30 GMT
I'm somewhat confused...Sunak tells the inquiry he lost all his whatsapp messages - so why did he spend a fortune of our money trying to get disclosure stopped through the courts?
|
|
|
Post by AlliG on Dec 11, 2023 17:09:00 GMT
I'm somewhat confused...Sunak tells the inquiry he lost all his whatsapp messages - so why did he spend a fortune of our money trying to get disclosure stopped through the courts? Because he was "losing" them one at a time and he needed a bit of extra time?
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Dec 11, 2023 17:46:55 GMT
So the Party of Law and Order On it's Right Wing they don't like the Bill because it doesn't break enough International and Domestic Laws On the Left wing they don't like the Bill because it does break International and Domestic Laws Those Conservative MPs in the Centre are shiting themselves because it might lead to an early GE Scenes *On a related issue if the Bill doesn't pass can Arsenal be prosecuted for encouraging people to visit an unsafe Country?
|
|
|
Post by PotteringThrough on Dec 11, 2023 17:54:33 GMT
So the Party of Law and Order Those Conservative MPs in the Centre are shiting themselves because it might lead to an early GE Do you think this is what Rishi wants as a get out clause? He’s probably sorted all the deals he wanted to now, got the foot in the door for all his wife’s interests and the in laws are well set. This causes a split in the party, he says he’s not the man to unite and lead & will drop out after the next election - demands for a general election are met and he swans off to the Californian coast with his new pals in the tech industry.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Dec 11, 2023 17:56:14 GMT
I'm somewhat confused...Sunak tells the inquiry he lost all his whatsapp messages - so why did he spend a fortune of our money trying to get disclosure stopped through the courts? And why did he ban Scottish MPs from meeting tech giants and our only representation was Sunak who admittedly doesn't even know or understand how WhatsApp back ups work. May as well have sent my dead nan.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Dec 11, 2023 18:50:23 GMT
So the Party of Law and Order Those Conservative MPs in the Centre are shiting themselves because it might lead to an early GE Do you think this is what Rishi wants as a get out clause? He’s probably sorted all the deals he wanted to now, got the foot in the door for all his wife’s interests and the in laws are well set. This causes a split in the party, he says he’s not the man to unite and lead & will drop out after the next election - demands for a general election are met and he swans off to the Californian coast with his new pals in the tech industry. I wouldn't rule it out, it's only a matter of timing I expect most dissenters will abstain or be even bigger hypocrites than they already are. I haven't worked out the numbers but I expect the Bill to pass second reading, if it doesn't a GE is inevitable Then the fun begins in the Lord's and HoC amendments enough to bog it down for at least weeks if not months after the Christmas recess. We could end up with as many "meaningful votes" as we had in Brexit, none of which passed The Bill seeks to rule out a Refugee seeking Judicial Review in UK Courts but I could certainly see if required a Judicial review being brought by some "lefty lawyers" which would present an interesting position if it got to the Supreme Court on Parliamentary Sovereignty
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Dec 11, 2023 19:03:17 GMT
Do you think this is what Rishi wants as a get out clause? He’s probably sorted all the deals he wanted to now, got the foot in the door for all his wife’s interests and the in laws are well set. This causes a split in the party, he says he’s not the man to unite and lead & will drop out after the next election - demands for a general election are met and he swans off to the Californian coast with his new pals in the tech industry. I wouldn't rule it out, it's only a matter of timing I expect most dissenters will abstain or be even bigger hypocrites than they already are. I haven't worked out the numbers but I expect the Bill to pass second reading, if it doesn't a GE is inevitable Then the fun begins in the Lord's and HoC amendments enough to bog it down for at least weeks if not months after the Christmas recess. We could end up with as many "meaningful votes" as we had in Brexit, none of which passed The Bill seeks to rule out a Refugee seeking Judicial Review in UK Courts but I could certainly see if required a Judicial review being brought by some "lefty lawyers" which would present an interesting position if it got to the Supreme Court on Parliamentary Sovereignty It's nailed on that fox killing prick with the stupid name will challenge it. I'd have more respect for him if he treated badgers with equal contempt.
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Dec 11, 2023 19:04:36 GMT
I wouldn't rule it out, it's only a matter of timing I expect most dissenters will abstain or be even bigger hypocrites than they already are. I haven't worked out the numbers but I expect the Bill to pass second reading, if it doesn't a GE is inevitable Then the fun begins in the Lord's and HoC amendments enough to bog it down for at least weeks if not months after the Christmas recess. We could end up with as many "meaningful votes" as we had in Brexit, none of which passed The Bill seeks to rule out a Refugee seeking Judicial Review in UK Courts but I could certainly see if required a Judicial review being brought by some "lefty lawyers" which would present an interesting position if it got to the Supreme Court on Parliamentary Sovereignty It's nailed on that fox killing prick with the stupid name will challenge it. I'd have more respect for him if he treated badgers with equal contempt. Oi!
|
|