They don't need guru's, racism consultants etc they just need to apply the current anti racism laws.
People are up in arms about such shite because its wasted money, if the current set of equality and diversity training isn't up to the job sack those providing and replace. Adding another layer of training on the outside is ludicrous, but remember these are managers and they need to justify their existence, because truth be known most couldn't manage a beer fart in a brewery.
Typical Daily Mail , £100k bet they were less critical of the £billions wasted on useless PPE
Truebrit, I agree that waste needs to be drastically reduced, but as far as PPE is concerned, let’s wait for the inquiry to get to the truth of the matter. The government has said that only a small amount of PPE was not up to standard, but there have been a lot of wild allegations being fired by its detractors.
It’s difficult to know who to believe at the moment, but the truth will out.
Sir Patrick Vallance today was interesting, although I kept getting interrupted because my wife found it boring.
What does surprise me is the lawyers are all over the place with their questions. What I mean by that is a question on may 2020 followed by one of December 2020 another of April 2020. The evidence would be easier to follow if they worked in chronological order. The witnesses minds need to be jumping not just months but a year, difficult to follow the lines of questioning.
Truebrit, I agree that waste needs to be drastically reduced, but as far as PPE is concerned, let’s wait for the inquiry to get to the truth of the matter. The government has said that only a small amount of PPE was not up to standard, but there have been a lot of wild allegations being fired by its detractors.
It’s difficult to know who to believe at the moment, but the truth will out.
Yes I agree 100% lets wait and see if any of the allegations are accurate or not
Sir Patrick Vallance today was interesting, although I kept getting interrupted because my wife found it boring.
What does surprise me is the lawyers are all over the place with their questions. What I mean by that is a question on may 2020 followed by one of December 2020 another of April 2020. The evidence would be easier to follow if they worked in chronological order. The witnesses minds need to be jumping not just months but a year, difficult to follow the lines of questioning.
I haven’t heard any of these interviews yet but the commentary I have heard is that the questions seem to be aimed at finding fault against individuals, whereas the whole point of the inquiry was to identify the things that went right and the things that went wrong so we can learn from them in the future.
It seems to me that a lot of so-called professional people are exercising their own political bias in what should be an independent inquiry.
It seems to me that a lot of so-called professional people are exercising their own political bias in what should be independent inquiries.
We'll see whether the truth wills out or if this degenerates into an anti-Tory witch-hunt from the left
If you throw enough Mud some of it will stick
It already has, unfortunately.
It already has, unfortunately.
Yep
Patrick Valance said that he made diary entries each night, especially after stressful days for the benefit of his mental health, but his feelings today bare no resemblance to back then.
I take the point on individuals, but he was asked today about COBRA meetings, TV presentations each night, things along those lines. I didn't see anywhere near enough of it, but he was asked questions over which quite frankly its wasn't his job to know ir answer. He was asked to do TV but stated that alot of questions ended up being political, which was also not his job.
That old chestnut of him only being an advisor, as is the Chief Medical Officer etc but ultimately the government had other considerations as well. His opinions on locking down, length, how hard etc was touched on. He effectively said the scientists saw data in march 2020 that indicated that covid had the possibility of being devastating. Hancock often told untruths which often had to be back pedalled, but I thought he felt that was over enthusiasm rather than deceit.
Chris Witty tomorrow and Johnathan Van Tam on Wednesday still to come.
Sir Patrick Vallance today was interesting, although I kept getting interrupted because my wife found it boring.
What does surprise me is the lawyers are all over the place with their questions. What I mean by that is a question on may 2020 followed by one of December 2020 another of April 2020. The evidence would be easier to follow if they worked in chronological order. The witnesses minds need to be jumping not just months but a year, difficult to follow the lines of questioning.
This is a deliberate strategy I believe. If you have been briefed and trained to provide a narrative as your evidence, then you will in all probability not be telling the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. You will also have memorised the narrative in chronological order in much the same way as watching the plot of a film or book unfold. When asked at random about specific pieces of the plot without having played the story through in full to that point, it will become harder to provide the answer complete with the contextual pointers and nuances that have been pre-prepared in a narrative. In other words it helps to flush out those who are bullshitting from those who are telling the truth.
It would be interesting to see how these responses are recorded by the lawyers, I assume they are also working from what they consider to be a storyboard of events against time. I bet the story being told by the various witnesses when combined shows a wide variety of details with some wild outliers which will either be the golden nuggets of truth or expose the big liars.
AS
That seems feasible, clearly my interview skills training followed a different model. We probably arrived at the same goal just took a different bus.
But you gotta admit it does seem person focused. You can write whatever policies and procedures you like, it's impossible to cater for all eventualities, personalities or ideologies.
We know that Starmer wanted to lockdown harder sooner and for longer. Patrick Vallance was similar if I heard correctly, but was Boris's cautious approach to lockdowns beneficial or did it make it worse? Every other person depending on where they sit will feel differently, you yourself are living proof of that.
My feelings are that if you collect person centred data, then you will end up with person centred results. It's not supposed to be a blame game, but a steep learning curve to help us be more prepared for a next time.
Display MoreAS
That seems feasible, clearly my interview skills training followed a different model. We probably arrived at the same goal just took a different bus.
But you gotta admit it does seem person focused. You can write whatever policies and procedures you like, it's impossible to cater for all eventualities, personalities or ideologies.
We know that Starmer wanted to lockdown harder sooner and for longer. Patrick Vallance was similar if I heard correctly, but was Boris's cautious approach to lockdowns beneficial or did it make it worse? Every other person depending on where they sit will feel differently, you yourself are living proof of that.
My feelings are that if you collect person centred data, then you will end up with person centred results. It's not supposed to be a blame game, but a steep learning curve to help us be more prepared for a next time.
I agree it is a Public Inquiry into the Actions and collective Decisions made during the Pandemic , it is not a Criminal Trial to apportion blame anyone, no person will be found guilty or innocent, it is to learn from any mistakes made during the Pandemic to be better prepared for the next one which is bound to happen.
The amount of meetings and paperwork and decisions made in writing is huge spread across the four nation, the Scots are conducting their own inquiry
Display MoreAS
That seems feasible, clearly my interview skills training followed a different model. We probably arrived at the same goal just took a different bus.
But you gotta admit it does seem person focused. You can write whatever policies and procedures you like, it's impossible to cater for all eventualities, personalities or ideologies.
We know that Starmer wanted to lockdown harder sooner and for longer. Patrick Vallance was similar if I heard correctly, but was Boris's cautious approach to lockdowns beneficial or did it make it worse? Every other person depending on where they sit will feel differently, you yourself are living proof of that.
My feelings are that if you collect person centred data, then you will end up with person centred results. It's not supposed to be a blame game, but a steep learning curve to help us be more prepared for a next time.
As much as this is supposed to be about learning for the future, it is going to crucify some people for sure as their individual ineptitude becomes glaringly apparent. And what should be done when that ineptitude strays into the criminally negligent or dereliction of duty or failure of the duty of care or even into gross misconduct or even dare I suggest misleading the public with statements that were knowingly false including coercive behaviour (which is a criminal offence on an individual basis). Who knows where this will go? Currently some are not looking so good are they?
I understand that this is not supposed to be a blame game but if individual wrong doing is determined and that wrong doing was resultant from conscious thought and consideration rather than incompetence and ignorance we have a game changing prospect on our hands.
What will happen if criminal acts are identified from this? Will they be brushed under the carpet? I really hope not.
It really doesn't matter how bad the pandemic was, there should be no criminality involved in the management of such a crisis. I believe there was and people need to be brought to book for what they did. But I have said this before as my expectations of this process exceed its stated remit.
AS
Not sure where or why you are so sure of criminality, but if the lead of this enquiry suspects that, as a judge she will be duty bound to notify the police.
There is a difference between someone facing a situation as a senior manager that places them out of their depth and ineptitude and dereliction of duty. Governments are about collective responsibility, but every organisation has a person at the top. It's easy to say the buck stops here, but imho everyone involved in covid in some way or other was out of their depths by virtue of operating in the dark until we knew more about the virus.
It's clear from Valkance and Witty, science and Medical wanted quicker, harder, longer lockdowns but that doesn't take into account the wider aspects of running the country, the economy and effectively taking the public with you. For all his faults, Boris did that fairly well but partygate destroyed that. I hate pressure groups because they have an agenda, like Justice for covid families, its clear just from the name they feel someone MUST be responsible. In truth, the person that is responsible forvtheir loved obes demise is the person that infected them.
I have BIG doubts as to the direction of this enquiry, but we have to allow them to see it through. But it is my opinion that if the final report is a character assassination of any individuals it should be suppressed. Because covid in all its parts was not an individual responsibility.
Display MoreAS
Not sure where or why you are so sure of criminality, but if the lead of this enquiry suspects that, as a judge she will be duty bound to notify the police.
There is a difference between someone facing a situation as a senior manager that places them out of their depth and ineptitude and dereliction of duty. Governments are about collective responsibility, but every organisation has a person at the top. It's easy to say the buck stops here, but imho everyone involved in covid in some way or other was out of their depths by virtue of operating in the dark until we knew more about the virus.
It's clear from Valkance and Witty, science and Medical wanted quicker, harder, longer lockdowns but that doesn't take into account the wider aspects of running the country, the economy and effectively taking the public with you. For all his faults, Boris did that fairly well but partygate destroyed that. I hate pressure groups because they have an agenda, like Justice for covid families, its clear just from the name they feel someone MUST be responsible. In truth, the person that is responsible forvtheir loved obes demise is the person that infected them.
I have BIG doubts as to the direction of this enquiry, but we have to allow them to see it through. But it is my opinion that if the final report is a character assassination of any individuals it should be suppressed. Because covid in all its parts was not an individual responsibility.
You make good points CL. As I said my expectations exceed the remit of the enquiry but I would expect any behaviours that strayed into the criminal area would be notified to the Police.
In terms of the government response you know I think it was OTT but it was what it was. Examining the information known at the time, the guidance and advice offered and the decisions made and why will be fascinating once the final report is published in several years time. However, my real concern is not around the lockdown and the advice given and subsequently taken or ignored. My concern is related to what we the public were told, the way we were told, the things we were not told, the accuracy of what we were told, why we were told what we were told, the efforts to illicit compliance, the legality of creating a two tier society of vaxxed vs unvaxxed, the general ethics of the strategy of nudging and the utilisation of psychological Ops techniques, statistical techniques used, the policing of compliance and the penalties issued to transgressors, the allegations that Covid hit ethic minorities harder and covid based racism. The power grab, the acquisition of huge wealth by a small number of individuals, the mis-management of tax payers cash all need to be looked into.
The rationale for keeping inwards migration (of the legal kind) going throughout Covid - over 1m came into the country legally during the pandemic whilst we were locked down and banned from travelling - why?. All these things need full investigation. The decisions about who ordered the mass movement of elderly from Hospitals to care homes is almost irrelevant now.
I doubt that any of these issues will be examined as these are the issues which leave the bad taste. Covid does have a 99.7% survival rate and the average age of covid death was 82 so it was not really much of a problem for most people - so that really begs the question why? Why do all the things (I just mentioned above that won't be covered by the enquiry) when there really wasn't much risk to most people - what was really going on??
AS
I wonder if this becomes the prelude to civil litigation against those involved.
AS
I wonder if this becomes the prelude to civil litigation against those involved.
The people vs the UK Gov.
I think that is called a General Election.
Display MoreYou make good points CL. As I said my expectations exceed the remit of the enquiry but I would expect any behaviours that strayed into the criminal area would be notified to the Police.
In terms of the government response you know I think it was OTT but it was what it was. Examining the information known at the time, the guidance and advice offered and the decisions made and why will be fascinating once the final report is published in several years time. However, my real concern is not around the lockdown and the advice given and subsequently taken or ignored. My concern is related to what we the public were told, the way we were told, the things we were not told, the accuracy of what we were told, why we were told what we were told, the efforts to illicit compliance, the legality of creating a two tier society of vaxxed vs unvaxxed, the general ethics of the strategy of nudging and the utilisation of psychological Ops techniques, statistical techniques used, the policing of compliance and the penalties issued to transgressors, the allegations that Covid hit ethic minorities harder and covid based racism. The power grab, the acquisition of huge wealth by a small number of individuals, the mis-management of tax payers cash all need to be looked into.
The rationale for keeping inwards migration (of the legal kind) going throughout Covid - over 1m came into the country legally during the pandemic whilst we were locked down and banned from travelling - why?. All these things need full investigation. The decisions about who ordered the mass movement of elderly from Hospitals to care homes is almost irrelevant now.
I doubt that any of these issues will be examined as these are the issues which leave the bad taste. Covid does have a 99.7% survival rate and the average age of covid death was 82 so it was not really much of a problem for most people - so that really begs the question why? Why do all the things (I just mentioned above that won't be covered by the enquiry) when there really wasn't much risk to most people - what was really going on??
This subject is now on two threads. The biggest mistake the government made was by bankrupting the country through lock downs. It was only ever going to press the pause button, and at the same time bankrupt the country. They did it because they were sheep, and decided to copy other countries. It was a virus that thinned out the very old and vulnerable, as there were less than 600 people under the age of 60 who died from it, and no doubt most of those would have been quite ill to start with. I would also point out that most people died with it, NOT of it, but the figures were manipulated to make things look worse than they were in order to scare people into compliance. Sweden were successful in their actions and didn't lock down
This subject is now on two threads. The biggest mistake the government made was by bankrupting the country through lock downs. It was only ever going to press the pause button, and at the same time bankrupt the country. They did it because they were sheep, and decided to copy other countries. It was a virus that thinned out the very old and vulnerable, as there were less than 600 people under the age of 60 who died from it, and no doubt most of those would have been quite ill to start with. I would also point out that most people died with it, NOT of it, but the figures were manipulated to make things look worse than they were in order to scare people into compliance. Sweden were successful in their actions and didn't lock down
Exactly my point Bibbles. A full investigation of the strategy and tactics deployed is what I want. Whether Boris said “let the bodies pile high” or not I couldn’t give a shit. It was the power grab in all its forms that needs to be stamped out now. And I forgot the media, the complicit media. That needs sorting out too.
Don’t have an account yet? Register yourself now and be a part of our community!
